Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Rochdale Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Staffordshire County Council Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Torquay Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ealing Extension) Bill,

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Somerset and Wilts) Bill,

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the action last Tuesday of the Soviet representative to the Spain Non-Intervention Committee in refusing even to represent to his Government the view of the other countries that the question of the gold belonging to the Bank of Spain must be considered in regard to any plan to withhold financial assistance from both sides in the civil war; and will he make direct representations to the Russian Government on the matter?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): The proceedings of the committee, as is well known, are confidential, and, since no mention of any such matter was made in the communiqué reporting the meeting in question, I am unaware upon what evidence my hon. and gallant Friend bases the suggestion made in the first part of his question. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Captain Ramsay: Are we to assume from the reply of my Noble Friend that the Russian representative is raising no difficulties in the consideration of this matter of the gold belonging to the Bank of Spain?

Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friend must only assume what is in the answer.

Captain Ramsay: While perfectly well understanding the answer, may I ask my Noble Friend whether he can assure this House that in such an important affair as these conversations the question of bringing this matter to the notice of the Russian Government in some way or another will not be allowed to go by default so far as he is concerned?

Mr. Mander: Would not such action be a wholly unwarranted interference in the private affairs of a friendly Government?

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Is it not a fact that the whole of our trading with Spain is going to be jeopardised by the Reds having looted all the gold?

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether consideration has been given to the practicability of a naval blockade on the Spanish coasts to prevent the supplies of munitions or men reaching that country?

Viscount Cranborne: All the various possibilities for a system of supervising the application of the Non-Intervention Agreement have been under careful consideration by the technical advisers of the International Committee during the last few weeks, and, as a result of their recommendations, a comprehensive plan of supervision is now before the various Governments. I am not, however, in a position to disclose the nature of these proposals which, like the other work of the committee, are confidential.

Mr. Mander: In view of the failure up to the present to arrive at any definite decision, would not the best course be for the Government to fix a date at which they are willing to put the blockade into operation with the assistance of all other Governments willing loyally to co-operate?

Mr. Radford: Would that include a blockade of the frontier between France and Spain?

Mr. Mander: Certainly.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will the hon. Member explain how we can have a blockade until we have first got a Navy?

Viscount Cranborne: I have already said that the proceedings of the Committee are confidential, and also that all the various possibilities have been under consideration, and I cannot say any more.

Mr. R. Acland: Will there ever be a time when we can get to know?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will have the necessary inquiries made so as to ascertain the approximate numbers and nationalities of foreigners taking part in the Spanish civil war, on the Government side and on that of General Franco?

Viscount Cranborne: Such reports as can be obtained regarding the arrival of foreigners in Spain are already being received but, as has been explained to the House on several occasions, the material available is not sufficiently complete to enable His Majesty's Government to make any accurate estimates of the numbers of men involved.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: My Noble Friend has already stated in the House that the numbers are about equal on the two sides. If he has that information will he pursue those inquiries a little further, and show the composition as regards nationalities and numbers?

Viscount Cranborne: I stated that I had no accurate information, but that to the best of my knowledge they were about equal.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Quite apart from their being about equal, will my Noble Friend ascertain what is the composition of these equal forces?

Viscount Cranborne: That information we have not got.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we have the figures based on the Noble Lord's best knowledge?

Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir, I could not give any figures to the House that were not accurate.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not true to say that all those who have supplied the information are all perverters of the truth?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the latest computation of the number of Italian regular forces landed in Spain; whether His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome has been instructed to inform the Italian Government that the presence of these forces in Spain is incompatible with the purposes of the Non-Intervention Committee; and what, if any, action the Government propose to take to secure their withdrawal?

Viscount Cranborne: According to my information, there are large numbers of Italian personnel in Spain. I cannot, however, give any accurate estimate of the numbers of men involved. The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that His Majesty's Government recently addressed the principal European Powers with a view to putting a stop to the despatch of volunteers to Spain. The Italian Government, in common with the other Governments concerned, have undertaken to prohibit these movements as soon as others do so, but they have declined to take such steps in advance of other countries. His Majesty's Government are now exercising their utmost efforts to secure agreement in the Non-Intervention Committee on a date on which the prohibition could be put into force simultaneously by all Powers. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on 8th February to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart Sandernan).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does the Noble Lord consider that the Italian armed forces have been sent to Spain to preserve the status quo in the Mediterranean referred to in the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMEL.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position in Memel, and to what extent those who were sentenced in the treason trial of 1934–35 have now been liberated?

Viscount Cranborne: As far as I am aware, the political position in the Memel territory is now generally satisfactory, the ordinary administration being conducted by a Directorate of Memellanders under a governor appointed by the Lithuanian Government, in accordance with the terms of the Memel Statute of 1924, while economic conditions in the territory have benefited from the commercial and frontier traffic agreement concluded by the German and Lithuanian Governments in August last. According to the latest report from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Kovno, about half of those sentenced in the treason trial have now been released, the total number still in prison being 44.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL (TREATIES).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Treaty of Alliance with Portugal, which dates back to 1373, was last renewed; and in what circumstances would Great Britain be involved in supplying armed forces to Portugal under the present existing treaty?

Viscount Cranborne: The Treaty of 1373 and the later treaties of alliance between Great Britain and Portugal, were confirmed as a whole in 1899, and the preamble of the Arbitration Treaty with Portugal of 1904, known as the Treaty of Windsor, refers to the alliance subsisting between the two countries, thus recognising the validity of the old treaties. By the terms of these treaties His Majesty's Government undertake to defend and protect Portugal and the Portuguese colonial territory against aggression. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the statement made regarding the interpretation of these treaties by my right hon. Friend in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 11th November last.

Mr. Day: Do we understand that the obligations are limited?

Viscount Cranborne: Perhaps the hon. Member will read the reply to which I referred.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can we rely on the assistance of Portugal in the event of this country being attacked?

Colonel Gretton: Do the British Government still regard these treaties in regard to the defence of Portugal and her Colonial possessions as binding on us?

Viscount Cranborne: Certainly the Treaty is still binding, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer given by my right hon. Friend which is referred to, which makes the interpretation of the Treaty perfectly clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (STEAMSHIP "VAN-DUARA" CAPTAIN'S DETENTION).

Lieut.-Colonel Moore - Brabazon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information concerning 'the imprisonment of the British captain of the British steamer "Vanduara," in Turkey, as a result of the collision of his vessel with a Turkish motor-boat, resulting in the loss of six lives; and whether, having regard to the fact that a committee of experts has found that the captain was in no way to blame for the collision, a protest will be made to the Turkish Government against the detention of this British master mariner as though he had acted criminally?

Viscount Cranborne: This case is being carefully watched by His Majesty's Ambassador at Angora and His Majesty's Consul-General at Istanbul. I have no information as to the finding of any committee of experts. Under Turkish law the principals in an accident involving death are liable to be detained until the judicial investigation into the case is concluded. According to my information, the conditions of Captain Farquhar's detention are good, and, although the investigation has not yet been completed, His Majesty's Government are doing what they properly can to ensure that it is expedited. His Majesty's Government will continue to keep the matter under close review.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Can my Noble Friend assure the House that this officer is being treated in no way worse than the Turkish Government would treat one of their own nationals?

Viscount Cranborne: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that he is being treated under good conditions. He is confined in the Governor's private rooms, and he gets his meals from outside.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German proposals for an European settlement, dated 31st March, 1936, have been withdrawn or in any way modified?

Viscount Cranborne: So far as I am aware, there has been no specific withdrawal of the pronouncement made by the German Chancellor on the date in question, but the hon. Member will be aware of subsequent statements of policy on behalf of the German Government.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the German Government have refused to participate in negotiations for the settlement of European problems, although in their own peace plan they advocated the holding of active negotiations?

Viscount Cranborne: I think it would not be true to say that the German Government have refused. There certainly has been considerable delay, but we still hope that negotiations will take place.

Captain Peter Macdonald: It is not a fact that there were no definite proposals put forward by the German Government on 31st March?

Viscount Cranborne: There were certain general proposals put forward by the German Chancellor.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Germany has entered into communication with any of the States on her southeastern or north-eastern frontiers, and, if so, which, with a view to extending to them a direct invitation to them to conclude non-aggression pacts, as indicated in paragraph 17 of the peace plan of the German Government of 31st March, 1936?

Viscount Cranborne: Apart from the German-Polish Agreement of 29th January, 1934, which was; of course, concluded before the date in question, and the Austro-German Agreement of 11th July, 1936, the terms of both of which have been published, I have no information regarding any action by the German

Government on the lines indicated by the hon. Member.

Mr. Henderson: Does it not appear that the peace plan in question has been treated by the German Government as another scrap of paper?

Viscount Cranborne: Not necessarily.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA (AERODROMES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that any dispute between Germany and Czechoslovakia is a matter in which we should be closely interested under the Covenant of the League of Nations, he will state why the invitation to inspect military aerodromes offered by the Czechoslovakian Government was not accepted?

Viscount Cranborne: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject given to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 27th January, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that that is contrary to what the Noble Lord informed me last week, and that it is clear that we are keenly interested in this matter under the Covenant, will he not reconsider the British refusal to inspect the aerodromes?

Viscount Cranborne: I said that approach was made to us individually. If there were an international approach, it would no doubt be considered internationally.

Oral Answers to Questions — CALENDAR REFORM.

Mr. Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of securing the international adoption of a reformed calendar was considered by the League of Nations Council; and, if so, what was the decision?

Viscount Cranborne: On 25th January, the Council recommended to the attention of the Advisory Committee for Communications and Transit a resolution on the subject of calendar reform passed by the International Labour Conference last June. The Chilean representative presented to the Council a draft Convention which was also referred to the Advisory Committee, with the suggestion that it should be brought to the notice of Governments.

Mr. Mabane: Would the Noble Lord pass that question on to the Home Office?

Viscount Cranborne: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON NAVAL TREATY, 1936.

Mr. George Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the expiry at the end of 1936 of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, and the London Naval Treaty of 1930, and of the fact that the London Naval Treaty of 1936 has not yet been ratified by His Majesty's Government, what steps, if any, are being taken by His Majesty's Government, whether by bilateral pacts or otherwise, to secure the ratification of the 1936 Treaty?

Viscount Cranborne: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are fully prepared to ratify the London Naval Treaty, 1936. They are still, however, engaged in Naval conversations with other Powers for the purpose of concluding bilateral agreements on the basis of the London Naval Treaty, 1936, and consider that, in view of these conversations, ratifications should for the present be deferred. It is hoped, however, that ratification by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom may take place at an early date.

Mr. Hall: Have any of the nations ratified the agreement?

Viscount Cranborne: I believe it has been ratified by the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PROMOTIONS (LOWER DECK).

Mr. Thorne: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any shortage of warrant officers for the Navy; how many candidates applied for the recent vacancies; what was the number of commissions awarded to the lower-deck men; whether the percentage of commissions awarded to the lower-deck men is now lower than some years ago; whether he can give the reason why more lower-deck men are not given promotion; what is the pay of a warrant officer on promotion from the lower deck; and whether the age of the lower-deck hand regulates promotion?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Samuel Hoare): There is no shortage of

candidates except in the branches of gunner, gunner (T) and boatswain. With regard to the second part of the question, I would explain that no question of application for vacancies arises. The system is that candidates first undergo the prescribed qualifying tests and those who qualify are placed on a roster to await vacancies. In the three branches in which there is a shortage, all those who have been placed on the roster have either been promoted or are waiting to undergo courses preparatory to promotion. The number of commissions issued to warrant officers in 1936 was 139 and the number of warrants issued to the lower deck was 186. Of these, 48 commissions and 64 warrants were issued in the three branches I have mentioned. As to the proportion of warrant officers to commissioned officers, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Green) on 27th January. The pay of warrant officers on promotion is 12s. 8d. a day in the non-mechanical branches, and 13s. 6d. a day in the mechanical. The age of a candidate for promotion to warrant rank does not affect his chances. There is, however, a maximum age limit of 35 in certain branches.

FUEL.

Mr. Ridley: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the consumption of coal and oil, respectively, for fuelling purposes in the British Navy for the year 1936; and what were the comparative figures for 1913?

Sir S. Hoare: The quantities of coal used by the Royal Navy in 1913 was 1,977,000 tons, and in 1936, 434,000 tons. I regret that information concerning the amount of oil fuel used is not for publication.

Mr. Paling: Is the use of oil fuel progressing, to the disadvantage of coal?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not sure what the hon. Member means. Perhaps he will put the question down.

Mr. Paling: There is a tendency for ships to use oil instead of coal, and what I am asking is whether that is still going on?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir.

Mr. G. Hall: Is coal fuel used solely for ships?

Sir S. Hoare: I believe the figure I gave includes only the coal used in ships, but I will look into it.

Mr. Maxton: What is the objection to giving the information asked for about oil fuel?

Sir S. Hoare: It would be disclosing information as to the amount of time British ships are at sea, and I do not think such information is given by any other country.

Mr. Maxton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that information was refused to the Committee last night, and that it appears on the front page of a paper to-day? Is he further aware that there are other means for finding out the fuel consumption of the Navy than by questions and answers in the House of Commons?

Sir S. Hoare: I cannot imagine it.

PROJECTILES (WIRELESS CONTROL).

Mr. De Chair: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether experiments have been carried out in this country in connection with the wireless control of torpedoes and gliding bombs from aeroplanes which has been perfected by an American inventor and adopted by the United States Navy Department?

Sir S. Hoare: Experiments have been carried out in the control by wireless of torpedo-like weapons, and the Admiralty are aware of the possibilities and limitations of such devices. As regards gliding bombs, I understand from the Air Ministry that that Department has no information about the particular invention to which the hon. Member refers, and the answer to that part of the question is therefore in the negative.

Mr. De Chair: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the disadvantage to us if any great Power nearer home than the United States of America secured control of that invention?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, but I do not accept the assumption on which my hon. Friend bases his supplementary question.

CHATHAM DOCKYARD (LITERATURE).

Mr. Thurtle: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has had an opportunity of making further inquiries into the distribution of Fascist literature in Chatham Dockyard and the fact that this has been permitted by the responsible

authorities; and whether he will state the result of such inquiries?

Sir S. Hoare: I have caused most careful inquiries to be made as the result of previous suggestions that Fascist literature was being distributed in Chatham Dockyard; but no evidence has been forthcoming to substantiate these allegations. I can assure the hon. Member that far from permitting the distribution of such literature, or of any other literature of a propagandist nature, within the Dockyard, the authorities are most anxious to prevent it.

Mr. Thurtle: Was particular inquiry made into the activities of the employé whose name was given to the right hon. Gentleman in confidence by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir. I have had two investigations made as the result of the representations made to me, and I can find no evidence of any kind for the accusations that were made.

RESERVES (STRENGTH).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all branches of Naval Reserve personnel are up to strength; and, if not, in what branches deficiency exists and in what numbers?

Sir S. Hoare: The present position is not unsatisfactory. The only deficiencies consist of 620 ratings in the Royal Naval Reserve out of an establishment of 8,330, and of 790 ratings in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve out of an establishment of 5,300. Of these numbers, however, more than one-third are serving under short engagements in the Fleet, and are expected to return to the Reserves when their Naval service is finished. The shortage in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve is chiefly in the signal and telegraphist branches. In the other Naval Reserves, I am glad to say that there is no deficiency.

ACTIVE LIST (ADMIRALS).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many admirals, vice-admirals, and rear-admirals are on the Active List; how many in each category are employed; and how many retired flag officers are employed?

Sir S. Hoare: The numbers of admirals, vice-admirals and rear-admirals on the Active List are 10, 19 and 39 respectively. These numbers include one vice-admiral and five rear-admirals who are supernumerary to the list because they hold certain civil appointments or appointments under Dominion Governments. The numbers of these officers who are employed are 7, 13 and 23 respectively. In addition, two vice-admirals and seven rear-admirals are undergoing courses and three rear-admirals have not yet been relieved in the appointments which they held as captains. Two vice-admirals have been retained in their active appointments after retiring, and four other retired flag officers hold supernumerary appointments.

SUBMARINE "SWORDFISH" (ACCIDENT).

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cause of the mishap to His Majesty's Submarine "Swordfish" on 2nd February; and whether any damage to the hull, underwater fittings, or electrical installation was sustained when she hit the bottom?

Sir S. Hoare: The accident occurred during exercises. There was no structural damage to the submarine, but some underwater fittings were damaged. I shall not be in a position to give my hon. and gallant Friend details of the cause of the accident until the report of the inquiry has been received.

ARMED MERCHANT SHIPS (GUN MOUNTINGS).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the value of the stock of war time gun mountings for armed merchant ships still held by the Admiralty; what proportion of such value is written off yearly; and what system of occasional inspection or review of this material is employed to guard against its retention in store when obsolete and to ensure the necessary replacements?

Sir S. Hoare: The ledger value of the gun mountings allocated to armed merchant cruisers, fast liners and defensively equipped merchant ships is approximately £2,500,000. The values of this stock are reduced by 4 per cent. annually to allow for obsolescence. These mountings are regularly inspected, and steps are taken

to maintain them in an efficient condition ready for use.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Does the First Lord consider that an allowance for depreciation under which it is 25 years before obsolescence arrives is sufficient for dealing with a stock of this kind?

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that that has always been the percentage, but I will look into it again and see if there is any reason for putting it higher.

TORPEDO WORKS, ALEXANDRIA, DUMBARTONSHIRE.

Mr. Cassells: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ex-service men now employed in the Argyll, Alexandria, Dumbartonshire; and whether he is aware that men seeking employment there are debarred employment if they profess certain political convictions?

Sir S. Hoare: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the Royal Naval Torpedo Works, Alexandria. The answer to the first part of the question is 202. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

Mr. Cassells: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the second part of my question, may I take it that the local manager of the Employment Exchange has unfettered discretion so far as the selection of employés is concerned?

Sir S. Hoare: Subject, of course, to the qualifications being satisfactory. There always has to be that condition.

Mr. Cassells: May we have an explanation of what is meant by "the qualifications being satisfactory"?

Sir S. Hoare: If the hon. Member will refer to an answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, of which I will send him a copy, he will find that it set out the case in detail. We have to assure ourselves that the men are satisfactory. In order that the hon. Member may have no undue anxiety, let me tell him that people's political opinions do not enter into the question.

ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.

Sir Robert Young: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether engine-room artificers are now urgently needed for His Majesty's Navy; whether engine-room artificers now have a chance to rise to posts worth £1,000 a year; and, if so,


will he state what these posts are and how many engine-room artificers, fourth-class, have occupied these posts during the past five years?

Sir James Blindell (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The answers to the first two parts of the hon. Member's question are in the affirmative. With regard to the third part, my right hon. Friend finds that among those officers of the engineering branch who have during the last five years held posts worth £1,000 a year, which are generally shore appointments for senior engineer commanders, there are 13 who have risen from the rating of engine-room artificer, fourth class.

NAVAL REVIEW.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether invitations will be issued to Members of Parliament to witness the Naval Review on 20th May, 1937; and, if so, when it is proposed to send them?

Sir S. Hoare: All Member of Parliament will be invited to witness the Naval Review, and invitations are being sent out in the course of the next few days.

IRAQ (ASSYRIANS).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered or will consider the possibility of settling the Assyrians of Iraq in some part of British-controlled territories in the African continent?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Yes, Sir. During recent years my predecessors and I have given the most earnest consideration to this question. Not only the African territories, but the whole of the Colonial Empire has been carefully considered with a view to finding some possible place of settlement. Unfortunately it has not yet been possible to find a suitable area in any of the non-self-governing Colonies, Protectorates or Mandated Territories, in which it would be practicable to settle the Assyrians of Iraq, apart from the serious political and economic difficulties which would inevitably arise. Inquiries, however, are still being pursued.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it would entail

any considerable cost on the British Government to settle these Assyrians?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I forget what was the exact amount that was stated at Geneva, but I understand that there is to be a conditional contribution, if the League pays so much and the Iraq Government pay so much.

Mr. Henderson: Would not the money be well spent if it were possible to settle them?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If we could find a climatically, socially and economically suitable area, it would be our wish that they should be settled.

Captain Heilgers: Can my right hon. Friend say why Transjordania, which is a very similar country to the Assyrians' home land, was rejected?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is very similar to Iraq, and we do not want exactly the same problem to arise in Arab Transjordania as has arisen in Arab Iraq.

MALTA (PRESS ORDINANCE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider an amendment of Ordinance No. V, of 1933 (Malta), requiring the deposit of a sum of £200 with the treasurer by anyone editing a newspaper, because of its inadequacy in preventing the publication of papers which may be subsidised by a foreign Government and because it renders the publication of Labour papers an impossibility while permitting publication to wealthy political leaders?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will consult the Governor with regard to the hon. Member's suggestion.

TRINIDAD (ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKING).

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet decided to permit the electricity franchise to be granted to Port of Spain, Trinidad, for which that municipality has for so long pleaded?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The transfer of the electricity undertaking from the Trinidad Electric Light Company to the Port of Spain municipality has been delayed pending the result of an appeal to the Privy Council by both parties from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Trinidad, in matters arising out of an arbitration award concerning the terms of transfer. The


result of the appeal to the Privy Council is expected shortly.

PALESTINE (JAFFA-HAIFA ROAD).

Captain Strickland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the date by which it is hoped to complete the road between Jaffa and Haifa; and whether, in view of the great importance of this road as a means of safe travel, its construction will be speeded up?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I fully appreciate the advantages of an early completion of the Jaffa-Haifa road, and considerable progress in its construction has already been made. The rate of further progress must necessarily depend on the general financial position of Palestine and the other competing claims of other urgent services upon Palestine Government funds.

Captain Strickland: Seeing that on 10th December, 1935, it was announced that 18 miles had been completed, and on 10th February that the acceleration of the building of the road was receiving consideration, can my right hon. Friend now inform the House how many miles have been completed up to date?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I should require notice of that question; no doubt I could find the information. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, however, since that time there has been very serious trouble in Palestine, and both labour and money have had to be devoted to security services.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this road, which, after all, has been under construction for a very considerable time, will be proceeded with with all possible celerity?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In view of the condition of Palestine, I must give priority to defence expenditure.

KENYA (DEFENCE FORCE).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the manner in which the European man-power of the Kenya Colony is now being utilised on a voluntary military basis for the general security of the colony?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The general outline of the proposals was indicated in the reply given by my predecessor to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest) on 16th March last. Since that date the details of the scheme have been worked out by a local committee and embodied in draft legislation, which has been published for consideration during the current session of the Kenya Legislative Council.

Mr. Day: Were the unofficial community consulted before this legislation was published?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The object of publishing it in draft form, and no decision being taken either by the Governor of Kenya or by myself, is that the unofficial community shall be fully consulted, and the matter fully and freely debated in the Legislative Council.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what direction any threat to the general security of Kenya comes?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I leave the hon. and gallant Member to draw any conclusion he likes.

Mr. Lunn: Is this in place of conscription in Kenya?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: My predecessor said last year:
I have agreed that the European manpower of the Colony could most efficiently be utilised, and the general security of Kenya best be served, by replacing the defence force, which is not satisfactory from a military point of view, by a Territorial Force on a voluntary basis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1936; col. 34, Vol. 310.]

GAMBIA (AIR MAILS).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the duration of the existing agreement for the carriage of air mails between the Government of the Gambia Colony and the Deutsche Luft Hansa Company; and whether there is any prospect of this agreement eventually being superseded by an equivalent agreement with a British air line?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: So far as I am aware, the arrangements made by the Government of the Gambia with the Deutsche Luft Hansa A.G. provide merely


for the carriage of mails from the Colony at agreed rates whenever such mails are tendered to the company, and do not relate to any specific period, and there is nothing to prevent the conclusion of similar arrangements with a British company if and when a British air service operates to the Gambia. I am, however, asking the Governor to confirm that this is, in fact, the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

HUMIDITY MAPS.

Mr. Markham: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that no reliable maps showing relative humidity are available for Great Britain; and whether, in view of the paucity of information available and the value of such information if available, he will cause such maps to be made?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): The Meteorological Office is at present engaged upon up-to-date computations of average weather statistics. The computations in respect of relative humidity will be undertaken shortly, and it is intended to issue maps as soon as practicable. In the meantime, the Meteorological Office will be found ready to furnish replies to specific inquiries relating to humidity.

Mr. Markham: Could not the process of compiling these maps be hastened, since this is one of the few civilised countries of the world that have not such maps?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Is there any country more humid than this?

SOUTH ATLANTIC SERVICE.

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what has been the final decision arrived at by the inter-departmental committee on international air communications on the question of the inauguration of a British air service across the South Atlantic ocean?

Sir P. Sassoon: My Noble Friend has under consideration recommendations submitted to him by the Committee a few days ago.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which company has been selected for this service?

Sir P. Sassoon: I cannot add to my answer.

Mr. Day: Is it proposed to publish the recommendations?

Sir P. Sassoon: I could not undertake that, in view of the fact that this is a standing committee which reports to the Minister.

AIR LINERS (CONSTRUCTION).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what action he has taken to develop the construction of medium-sized British air liners?

Sir P. Sassoon: The production of suitable types of civil aircraft for the commercial market is a matter primarily for the aircraft industry. The Air Ministry have, however, recently been able to assist in the development of a particular type (the de Havilland 91) by the placing of an order for the first two aircraft to be produced. My Noble Friend has at present under consideration whether the Air Ministry may be able to give further assistance in the development of such aircraft as those to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Simmonds: Will the right hon. Baronet hear in mind that considerable numbers of this type of air liner are being required in the Dominions, particularly Australia, and that the absence of any British types is causing foreign, and particularly American, aircraft to be purchased and, in view of this, will he reconsider the matter and see whether, in view of the fact that the approved firms are nearly all fully engaged with service aircraft, he could place orders with unapproved firms?

Sir P. Sassoon: It is considered that the type now under construction that I have mentioned will prove very suitable for the services that the hon. Member has in mind.

EMPIRE FLYING BOATS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether operational experience with the Empire flying boats has confirmed the practicability and advisability of their extensive use on imperial routes both over the sea and overland?

Sir P. Sassoon: The performance and comfort of the Empire flying boats has exceeded expectations, and nothing has


occurred, so far as I am aware, which would suggest deviation from the policy of using these boats on Imperial routes.

CATAPULT SHIPS.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has studied the use made of the principle of the catapult ship in the present German air-mail service between Berlin and Buenos Aires; and whether, as part of the schemes of the Air Ministry for the improvement of the Imperial air communications, the adoption of such ships is contemplated for use on those routes on which large distances to be flown over water present difficulty.

Sir P. Sassoon: Plans for making the catapult system of propulsion available for long-range trans-ocean air services are at present under active consideration at the Air Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

BALLOON BARRAGE, LONDON.

Sir Hugh Seely: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is still the intention of His Majesty's Government to adopt a balloon barrage for the air defence of London?

Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Montague: Is this balloon barrage to be a permanent institution, or do we wait for the declaration of war?

Sir P. Sassoon: We are going on with the arrangements for this balloon barrage as quickly as we can.

Sir H. Seely: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether delivery of balloons for the barrage defence of London began before the end of 1936, as promised by the Air Ministry; and how many have been delivered up to date?

Sir P. Sassoon: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I hardly think it would be in the public interest to give figures, but I am able to say that satisfactory deliveries have been made.

Sir H. Seely: What is the cause of the delay?

Sir P. Sassoon: There is no delay.

Sir H. Seely: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry intends to adopt for the balloon barrage defence of London the improved Ariel type of balloon used by the French Government; and whether any negotiations for the acquisition of the necessary patents are taking place or have been concluded?

Sir P. Sassoon: The type to which the hon. Member refers is not that for which orders have been placed.

Sir H. Seely: Is it not a fact that negotiations have been going on for over a year?

Sir P. Sassoon: The type of balloon that has been decided upon by the Air staff for the defence of London is the one they considered most suitable for the purpose.

Sir H. Seely: Is it not a fact that it has been stated publicly that the Ariel type can go up 25,000 feet while the one that the Government have selected goes up only 8,000 feet?

Sir P. Sassoon: It depends on the height you want to have them.

Sir H. Seely: Is it a fact that it has been decided that this barrage balloon for the defence of London is to be limited to 8,000 feet and not to 25,000 feet?

Mr. Montague: Will the right hon. Baronet answer the question as to the purpose of the Ministry? Surely the Ministry has considered whether it is to be a permanent institution, or upon what ground it is going to put up the barrage? Cannot we know that?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: You do not want them on the ground. You want them in the air.

Sir P. Sassoon: The purpose of the barrage is, obviously, to defend London.

METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE.

Mr. Markham: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the present meteorological staff of the Air Ministry and other Departments is adequate; and whether any steps have been taken to secure additional trained meteorologists to meet defence requirements?

Sir P. Sassoon: The expansion of the defence services necessitates a considerable enlargement of the meteorological service. No outside source of supply of trained meteorological staff is available, but additional staff is being recruited to the numbers required, and special arrangements for training have been instituted.

Mr. Markham: Will the increase of staff permit the Meteorological Office to devote more time to research and less to routine work?

Sir P. Sassoon: I hope that may be so.

Mr. Markham: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he considers that the science of weather forecasting has been sufficiently developed, or is sufficiently accurate, to provide adequate information to defence forces or arms relying on a foreknowledge of weather conditions for their successful operation; and, if not, what arrangements are being made or researches being carried out to achieve the desired development?

Sir P. Sassoon: The science of weather forecasting already affords information of much value to the defence forces and the possibilities of its further development are kept under constant study and review.

Mr. Markham: Will the right hon. Baronet amplify his answer? It is a vague phrase which does not contain any information at all. The question is very definite?

Sir P. Sassoon: The answer was that we are doing what we can for the moment and that we hope to do more.

OIL SUPPLIES.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the amount spent annually on oil imported for the Navy, Army, and the Air Force, respectively, and the amount spent anually on oil obtained in Great Britain for the same objects?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): Only a small proportion of the oil supplies of the Services is derived from sources in this country. In a number of classes, particularly where supplies are obtained from distributors' general stocks, the Depart-

ments have no sufficient information as to the sources to enable me to give figures. For information as to the total expenditure of the Services on oil supplies I would refer the hon. Member to the annual Estimates.

Mr. Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the need for the production of oil from coal in Britain and, if so, what steps are being taken?

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Member asks me a totally different question. If he will put it down I will obtain the information for him.

Mr. Paling: Were we not told in answer to a previous question of the tremendous reduction in the coal used by the Navy in the last few years, and is the fact that we have plenty of coal but have to import all the oil being studied?

TRANSPORT (CONTROL).

Mr. Walkden: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has considered the advisability of promoting legislation to amend the Regulation of Forces Act, 1871, in such manner as would enable the Government immediately to take control of the means of transport by road, water, and air in the event of an impending outbreak of war, as was done with the railways on the night of 4th August, 1914?

Sir T. Inskip: The question raised by the hon. Member is at present engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Walkden: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the appointment of an appropriate committee of experts, as was done in the case of the railways?

Sir T. Inskip: That: is a question that will be considered in connection with the details of any decision that is arrived at.

GRAIN STOCKS.

Mr. Walkden: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in view of the fact that gram when stored in bulk for long periods in this country is liable to develop mildew and other faults, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to get farmers to keep a good supply of wheat unthreshed until the summer months in each year to assist in ensuring adequate provision for bread-making in the event of an outbreak of war?

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Member's suggestion represents one of the possible methods of food storage, though it possesses definite disadvantages. On the general question of food storage I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) on 27th January.

Sir John Haslam: Would it not be a much more workable and feasible proposition to arrange with the bakery and grocery trades to hold larger stocks in their warehouses, and to use the well-aired granaries owned by the railway companies of the United Kingdom and also suitable warehouses which are standing empty at the present time?

Sir T. Inskip: That, also, is a matter which is very presently under consideration by the Government.

Sir William Wayland: Is it not the fact that hard wheat will keep in a granary at least 12 months without any change?

FACTORIES.

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, whether since the commencement of the rearmament programme any new factories have been constructed or planned in Yorkshire, and whether, in that case, he can give details?

Sir T. Inskip: Since the commencement of the rearmament programme, no Government factories have been constructed or planned in Yorkshire. A large number of contracts, however, have been placed in Yorkshire necessitating in some cases the extension of existing private factories.

Mr. Paling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are places in Yorkshire where there is as much as 37 or 38 per cent. of unemployment; and are such places as these given consideration when factories are put down?

Sir T. Inskip: Oh, yes, Sir. Yorkshire is considered, and all places are considered on the occasion when Government factories are established, but technical considerations have, of course, to be taken under review in every case.

Mr. Paling: Is particular consideration given to these places where unemployment is so heavy and where nothing has been done up to the present?

Sir T. Inskip: If the hon. Gentleman will indicate any particular places he has in mind, I shall be prepared to go into the matter?

Mr. Paling: I will indicate Hoyland for one.

HOME FOOD PRODUCTION.

Mr. DelaBère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give some information regarding the reorganisation of the national home-grown food supply; and, seeing that in a future war this country would not have time to extemporise food supplies once the war had started, is he satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to assist farmers to increase production to full capacity at once?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. Every aspect of the question of home food production in relation to national defence is receiving the fullest attention, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to say anything further on the subject at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Can the hon. Member say when it will be done? It has been long under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (WESTSUSSEX).

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that much concern exists at the proposals of the Southern Railway Company to lay down a live electric rail through the middle of the most agricultural and rural districts of West Sussex, and that protests have been made to the railway company against the danger to those employed in agriculture to their animals and farm stock, and to the loss caused in numerous cases by segregating one part of the farm or property from another; and whether he will use his influence to ensure that the railway company arrange for overhead electric cables or some other safe way of giving protection against the dangers of a live rail to children and animals?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. HoreBelisha): If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any places where children and animals are allowed


on an unprotected line, I will make immediate representations.

Brigadier-General Brown: Is it not a fact that originally the commission reported in favour of overhead lines for the Southern Railway but they would not accept it, and is it not a fact that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company are using overhead lines?

Mr. Simmonds: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that with the overhead system sparks are so frequent that it would be impossible to run trains through air raid periods.

Mr. Montague: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider a live rail wore dangerous to children than a live motor car?

CHEYNE WALK (BARRIER).

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the obstruction in the road on the Embankment in Cheyne Walk; whether this was erected with his cognisance and consent or with the consent of the police; and, if not, will he use his powers to have it removed as being an illegal obstruction to the free passage of our streets?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Chelsea Borough Council informed my Department and the Commissioner of Police that they were erecting this barrier as an experiment. I have no power in the matter.

Mr. Bellenger: What is the purpose of the experiment?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is in connection with the proposal to re-design the junction.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Do we understand that the Minister has no power to stop obstructions put up by the local authorities in our main streets in London?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I regret to say that I have no power.

LONDON OMNIBUS SERVICES (FARES).

Mr. Bull: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that no arrangement exists for season tickets at special rates for students travelling through London by omnibus; and whether, in view of the desirability that

such facilities should be provided so as to include the central area red omnibuses, he will communicate with the London Passenger Transport Board requesting the institution of such facilities at an early date?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Board are bound by their Act to charge such fares as will secure that their revenue shall be sufficient to meet all charges upon it. There is power for a local authority to apply to the Railway Rates Tribunal for modification of fares or conditions in particular cases.

ROAD MATERIAL.

Mr. Everard: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the amount of employment provided per ton of igneous rock used for road making as compared with the employment provided per ton of gravel and sand; and whether he will bear this in mind, in addition to the wearing and non-skid qualities of road material, when considering grants for road works, especially in those counties where unemployment is greatest?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, subject to suitability and cost.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the fact that several county surveyors have recently changed over from gravel and sand on their Class I roads in order to save maintenance costs?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I should require notice of that question.

ROAD SCHEMES (ISLANDS AND HIGH-LANDS, SCOTLAND).

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Minister of Transport the amount of expenditure borne on the Road Fund for schemes for improving roads in the Orkneys, Shetlands, Outer and Inner Hebrides, and the Highlands of Scotland; and whether he can indicate the approximate amount of receipts by way of motor-car taxes from persons owning cars registered in those parts of Great Britain?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The motor licence duties collected in these seven counties in 1936 amounted to £146,000 net. Grants out of the Road Fund amounting to £200,000 have been made during the current financial year to the county councils in question. In addition, I have undertaken to reconstruct and improve


a substantial proportion of the Class I roads in these counties at the sole cost, amounting to several million pounds, of the fund.

Mr. Hepworth: Does not the Minister think that the money could be spent more profitably in some of the congested areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If I thought so, I should not have answered as I did.

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. Banfield: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now considered the resolution of protest from the Association of West Midland Local Authorities against the selection of persons for the position of commissioner and deputy commissioner, respectively, who have received from the authorities only a small number of votes as against the over-

Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners, Salaries and Pension Allowances.


Area.
Chairman.
Date of appointment.
Salary.






£


Northern
Sir John Maxwell, C.M.G.
…
1.1.1931
1,500


Yorkshire
J. Farndale, C.B.E.
…
1.1.1931
1,500


North Western
W. Chamberlain, M. Inst. T.
…
1.1.1931
1,700*


West Midland
Col. A. S. Redman, C.R, M. Inst. T., R.E. (ret.)
…
1.1.1931
1,500


East Midland
J. H. Stirk, M. Inst. T., J.P.
…
1.1.1931
1,500


Eastern
Sir E. Haviland Hiley, K.B.E.
…
1.1.1931
1,500


South Wales
A. T. James, K.C., J.P.
…
1.1.1931
1,700*


Western
A. F. Nicholson, O.B.E.
…
1.1.1931
1,500


South Eastern
Sir Henry Piggott, C.B., C.B.E.
…
1.5.1934
1,650*


Metropolitan
Gleeson E. Robinson, M.C., LL. D
…
1.1.1931
1,700*


Northern Scotland
H. Riches, O.B.E.
…
1.1.1931
1,500


Southern Scotland
Archibald Henderson
…
1.1.1931
1,500


* Personal to present Chairman.


The amount of the pensions to be awarded to the five chairmen who will be eligible for consideration under the scheme of the Bill will depend upon the period of service completed and cannot now be calculated.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Transport the number of people killed and injured in road accidents in 1936, and the number to whom no compensation was paid?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: During the 52 weeks ended 26th December, 1936, 6,489 persons died and 225,689 were injured as a result of road accidents. I have no means of knowing in how many cases compensation was or was not paid.

Mr. Watkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea from data in his Department, whether it is not true that in

whelming support given to other nominations; and whether, in view of the considerable trouble taken by local authorities in these matters, he will give more consideration to their wishes?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 4th February to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport the names of the chairmen of traffic commissioners for each area, the salaries received per annum, and the pension to which they will become entitled on retirement if the proposed Bill becomes law?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

the case of a very large proportion of the men and women killed and injured on our roads, they or their dependants receive no compensation?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: These are matters which are determined either by agreement or in the courts, and I have nothing to support that statement, although I have no reason to doubt that it is perfectly true.

Mr. Watkins: If it is true that this is the case, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to amend the law in order that, in the case of everyone who is killed or injured on the roads, there shall be some form of compensation?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That involves the question of contributory negligence.

MOTOR VEHICLES (GUARDS).

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has consulted motor manufacturers regarding the practicability of compelling all motor vehicles to be equipped with guards as a means of reducing fatalities on the roads; and, if so, what has resulted from the consultations?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, and I am referring the question to the Transport Advisory Council for advice.

Mr. Montague: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a balloon barrage would be a very great idea?

LEVEL CROSSINGS.

Mr. Bull: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the desirability of the abolition of level crossings at Brimsdown, Duck Lees Lane, Ponders End, and South Street, Ponders End, in view of the inconvenience to traffic and the waste of time caused by their existence; and whether he is taking any steps to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am prepared to consider schemes submitted by highway authorities.

FORTH ROAD-BRIDGE SCHEME.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of recent representations made to him regarding the projected Forth road-bridge at Queensferry, he is now in a position to state what are the intentions of the Government when they consider the armaments position is less urgent?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know to what recent representations the hon. Member refers, and I cannot hypothecate the future.

Mr. Mathers: Is it not the case that within recent weeks the Minister has been interviewed by Lord Elgin and the Lord Provost of Edinburgh; and is he aware that when he speaks in Edinburgh on Friday night, he will be expected to say something about this matter, and that here is his opportunity of paving the way for that statement?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I hope—

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid he has lost the opportunity.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS.

Mr. Assheton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the desirability of discontinuing pedestrian passage-ways at controlled crossings as they constitute traps for unwary pedestrians?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It would not be practicable to adopt this suggestion, as when the police are not on duty the crossings are uncontrolled, and when they are on duty no difficulty should arise.

Mr. Assheton: Is the Minister aware that in many of these places the police are always on duty during the day?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is not always the case; they may be in some places.

BRIDGES AND SUBWAYS (SCHOOL CHILDREN).

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Transport in how many cases he has been asked to sanction schemes for bridges or subways to enable children to cross highways on their way to school; and in how many of such cases has he given his consent and indicated a grant?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have made it plain that I am prepared to consider any schemes of this character for grant at the appropriate rate, but no such schemes have been submitted by local authorities for my approval.

TRUNK ROADS (LIGHTING).

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Transport what research is being made by his Department into the problem of lighting trunk roads which consist of dual carriageways, cycle tracks, service roads, and footpaths, with park ways and verges separating each traffic route; and when a report on the subject may be expected?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: A Departmental Committee has been asked to consider the whole question of street lighting and expects to report towards the end of the year.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to call a conference of the lighting authorities and the electricity and gas undertakings along the routes of the various trunk roads to


discuss the problem of the adequate and appropriate lighting of such roads; and, if not, what steps is he taking to secure such lighting when he becomes the highway authority?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I answered this question last week.

Mr. Ede: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to have conferences with these various local authorities before he becomes a highway authority?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the moment I have no authority, and, therefore, I have no power to take action. But I am making a survey with such expedition as I can, and it will depend upon the results of that survey what further steps I shall be called upon to take.

Captain Strickland: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is about time he asked Parliament to confer these powers upon him?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I did, and Parliament gave them to me after next April.

Statement showing the total value of United Kingdom trade in merchandise during the year 1936 with (a) British Colonies and Protectorates and (b) Countries mandated to the United Kingdom.


—
Imports.
Exports.


Produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Imported Merchandise.
Total.



£'000.
£'000.
£'000.
£'000.


British Colonies and Protectorates.*
48,359
38,973
1,312
40,285


Countries mandated to the United Kingdom.
3,461
2,435
59
2,494


* Including Togoland and Cameroons (under British mandate) and New Hebrides (British and French condominium), for which separate particulars are not available.

WHEAT STOCKS.

Sir W. Wayland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, according to published reports, the stocks of wheat at Great Britain and Northern Ireland ports on the 1st January, 1937, amounted to 975,000 quarters, whereas on the same date in 1936 the amount was 1,210,000 quarters; and can he assure the House that this reduction is more than made up by extra holdings of millers over their stocks of January, 1936?

MCGOWAN COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Mr. E. Smith (for Mr. E. J. Williams): asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to implement the recommendations of the McGowan Report; and, if so, on what approximate date?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered this question on 9th November last.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES.

Mr. Mathers: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the imports into the United Kingdom from British Colonies and Protectorates for the year 1936, and the value of the exports from the United Kingdom to British Colonies and Protectorates for the same period?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Dr. Burgin: I am aware of the estimates quoted by my hon. Friend. Confidential information in regard to millers' stocks has been furnished from time to time, but I am not in a position to give figures relating to 1st January last.

Sir W. Wayland: Can the lion. Gentleman inform the House whether, with regard to the need for greater storage of wheat, any means have been taken in the last 12 months to increase the storage capacity for wheat in the future?

Dr. Burgin: The hon. Member should put his supplementary question upon the Paper, as it is a different question.

Mr. Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman see that, if there is any such provision, it is not published?

FACTORIES (SCOTLAND).

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of firms which have moved their industrial undertakings from Scotland to England for the years ended 1935 and 1936?

Dr. Burgin: The reports obtained for the purpose of the Survey of Industrial Development, which relate only to factories employing 25 or more workpeople, show that two factories were closed in Scotland during 1935 on account of work being transferred to England; no such case was reported in 1936. Both closures in 1935 were due to transfer of work to existing factories on reorganisation.

POST OFFICE (ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, NORTH WALES).

Major Owen: asked the Postmaster-General whether it has been finally decided to remove the Post Office engineering department for North Wales from Bangor to Chester; and, if so, will he state the reasons for this change?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): A new form of local telephone organisation is in process of being introduced throughout the country, of which the essential feature is the bringing together of the engineering and commercial sides under one control, that of the Telephone Manager. This necessarily involves a rearrangement of existing districts. Chester has been selected as the headquarters of the area in which the Bangor Engineering section is situated because it is more central in relation to the proposed area and has much better means of communication with all parts of that area. Incidentally, the selection of Chester will entail very much less disturbance of staff than would the selection of any other town in the area.

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE (ACCIDENT).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the

House any information about a window cleaner who was killed at the Royal Military College of Science, at Woolwich Arsenal; whether he is aware that the coroner decided to keep the ladder from which the man fell, and stated at the inquest that every rung was loose and the screws of seven were out; and what amount of compensation will be paid to the widow?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): The matter is being investigated, and I will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has knowledge of any gases, capable of being used in air warfare, which attack rubber; and whether the gas masks now being manufactured by the Government are made of rubber?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Rubber is not attacked, so far as we are aware, by any form of poison gas. Certain gases in liquid form are absorbed by rubber, but the gas can be neutralized by subsequent treatment leaving the rubber unaffected. The face pieces of the gas masks now being manufactured by the Government are made of rubber.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my hon. Friend investigate the question whether it is a fact that certain foreign countries have now gases which do attack rubber?

Mr. Lloyd: My information is that that is not the case.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the confusion which exists in the public mind as to the efficacy of the Government masks, will the hon. Member have an authoritative statement made on the subject?

Mr. Lloyd: Authoritative statements have been issued, and I hope they will be studied.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (GAMEKEEPERS).

Captain Heilgers: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee has considered the question of the extension of


unemployment insurance to gamekeepers; and, if so, will he state the decision arrived at?

Captain Hope (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The answer is, No, Sir.

Captain Heilgers: Will the hon. and gallant Member ask my right hon. Friend to invite the Committee to decide the question at an early date, as the gamekeepers' position is similar to that of private gardeners, who have already been included in insurance?

Captain Hope: I will convey my hon. and gallant Friend's remarks to my hon. and gallant Friend.

COAL INDUSTRY (OIL EXTRACTION).

Mr. E. Smith (for Mr. E. J. Williams): asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has a further statement to make as regards the commercial success of the Billingham plant; and on what approximate date the Government will undertake the establishment of further plants to extract oil from coal in the special areas?

Dr. Burgin: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and as regards the second part I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given yesterday by my hon. and gallant Friend to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith).

Mr. Paling: Can the hon. Member say why there is this delay in making a statement? Will it be possible to make a statement in the near future?

Dr. Burgin: The hon. Member will understand that I am answering for my hon. and gallant Friend. Perhaps it is desirable that the question should be put down again.

AIRCRAFT FACTORY, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Speaker: Notice has been given of a Private Notice Question by the hon. Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Mr. Brocklebank). It is the general rule of the House that when questions on a particular subject are already on the Order Paper Private Notice Questions cannot be answered on that subject.
There are two questions on the Order Paper similar to this one. On the other hand, I understand that it is very important that a statement should be made on this question, and perhaps the House will be willing to waive the rule on this occasion.

Mr. Brocklebank: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether a site in Lancashire has yet been chosen for the factory in place of the White Waltham site?

Sir P. Sassoon: A site at Speke, Liverpool, has been selected, subject to the Corporation of Liverpool approving the terms and conditions which have been provisionally agreed upon in negotiation.

Mr. Kirby: Can the Under-Secretary say when it is expected that the factory will be completed, and how many persons will be employed?

Sir P. Sassoon: The factory will be completed as soon as possible. As far as the number of people likely to be employed is concerned, I should like to have notice of the question.

Mr. Tinker: Can the Under-Secretary say whether any other places in Lancashire have been inspected for the purpose of selecting a site?

Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, at least 23 other sites have been inspected.

Mr. George Griffiths: When the Air Ministry are looking for other sites, will they think about South Yorkshire? So far we have had nothing.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE BUSINESS).

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 6, Private Business set down for consideration at Half-past Seven of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may be taken after Half-past Nine of the Clock."— [The Prime Minister.]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I am informed by the Chairman of Ways and Means that the opposition to these Bills has been withdrawn, and therefore I do not move the Motion.

ARBITRATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

PRESERVATION OF OLD BUILDINGS.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Bossom: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the destruction of beauty in town and country and the danger to houses of historic or architectural interest, declares that these are matters of national concern, and is of opinion that the Government should take active steps to ascertain whether its existing powers are adequate or whether they require substantial reinforcement.
I believe that I am justified in saying that practically everybody in the House is to a large extent in sympathy with the spirit of this Motion. I have never before experienced what it means to receive a fan mail. I am not a cinema star, as everyone will realise, but since the announcement that this subject was to be debated, my mail has increased to such an extent that I do not envy the cinema stars when they get their friends writing to them. Therefore, I shall not attempt in any way to apologise for occupying the time of the House in discussing this matter. All Governments and the leaders of all parties have expressed their approval of the preservation movement, yet it is in the personal knowledge of most hon. Members and of the national and local Press, who are daily announcing the fact, that much greater care must be exercised if we are to preserve what we already possess. Beauty spot after beauty spot is being defiled. Our marvellous and old historic places, which have withstood the ravages of man and the storms of nature for centuries, are now, through carelessness, stupidity, private gain or personal greed, passing away to the nation's everlasting loss.
I believe the Motion is somewhat unique in that it does not ask anything from the Government except that it prays them to investigate and see how we can stop the destruction of more of the nation's most precious possessions. From time to time all Governments have passed Statutes which have contained provisions to carry out the idea of the preservation of these ancient monuments and historic buildings. The Ancient Monuments Acts, the Town and Country Planning Act, the Ribbon Development Act, the Trunk Road Act, the Land Drainage Act, the Advertisements Regulation Act, have been passed, but many of them are strictly permissive, they are not compelling, and they frequently have to be administered by

small and rather impecunious local authorities. In some cases they call for compensation which these authorities feel they cannot or do not feel justified in paying. These various Acts affect practically all Departments and Ministers of the Government. They were introduced by the First Commissioner of Works, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture and the Home Secretary, and only a few moments ago we heard of a case where the Air Ministry is involved in difficulties in a certain part of the country. The Secretary of State for War is also in difficulties at the present time in Berkshire in connection with the Shrivenham camp, and we always realise that the Treasury has a lot to say when any money is possibly to be passed out. I think we may say that in situations like this where a matter is everybody's business it becomes no one's responsibility. I have mentioned most Members of the Cabinet in this connection and it works in practice that no special Minister is responsible and the question of the preservation of our national beauty spots and our historic buildings has become a national stepchild.
This lack of a definite responsibility has produced a negative policy, giving the appearance of complacency which I am sure, from what I have seen and heard, is totally incorrect. To make the attitude clear, contrast what is happening regarding architecture and fine scenery with our attitude towards painting. If anybody went into the National Gallery and attempted to destroy one of our national pictures he would be immediately taken to gaol. If a man attempted to destroy even his own historic paintings his friends and relations would immediately put him in a lunatic asylum. Yet we go on allowing the destruction of our most important and historic buildings and take little heed. There is one example which must be remembered by almost everyone in this House. One of the best examples of our monumental town planning is Carlton House Terrace on Crown property, which we allowed to be butchered simply because someone said it would make some money. As a result the whole nation has suffered a real loss. I am justified in saying that many real enthusiastic lovers of England, lovers of the beauties of these islands, live very much in a fool's paradise. They imagine that if attention


is loudly called to the fact that any beauty spot is in danger of being destroyed, there are laws existing which can prevent such destruction.
If the House will bear with me for a few minutes I will endeavour to show that this is not quite correct. Take the Ancient Monuments Acts. They are strictly permissive and are administered by a very small staff. I hope the Minister will tell us how small that staff is. They literally have no money. The work is done by voluntary efforts all over the country, by people who have to do other work to earn a living. Those who carry out these Acts cannot take any action on their own initiative in regard to inhabited structures, and I believe we shall all agree that at least 75 per cent. of the architectural monuments which are worth preserving are to-day inhabited, and yet this Act prevents them being touched unless they are voluntarily turned over to the Department. If a building is turned over and those who administer the Act do not quite agree with what is proposed to be done by the owner, their only alternative is to protest for three months, and then at the end of those three months, if the owner does not agree and they cannot reach a compromise, they have to come to this House and ask for money to purchase the monument in question.
Only twice during the life of these Acts has this condition arisen. In the first case the Department came to this House and the House refused the money, and, in the second, they compromised and allowed a garage, I believe, to be built, inconspicuously, in the centre of the monument. I feel confident in saying that as the Ancient Monuments Acts are purely voluntary and permissive we cannot rely on them to protect our ancient monuments if someone really wants to destroy them. Take the Town and Country Planning Act. That again is a permissive Act. Let me quote one or two figures. The Act was passed in 1932 and 37,000,000 acres were covered by it, but only 200,000 acres, mostly suburban, are now completed, controlled by the Act; that is approximately one-half of 1 per cent. of the area possible in the country. The Minister, when speaking on this matter on the last occasion when we discussed town and country planning, called attention to the fact that 20,000,000 acres were under resolution. Let me read a

short extract from the statement of the clerk to a town planning authority, which reached me on 28th January of this year. He was referring to a space which had been marked out as a public open space in 1934 but which has since been changed without any warning:
As you are no doubt aware, a planning scheme does not become a scheme until it has been laid before Parliament, and that until such planning scheme does become law any owner is entitled to do what he likes with the land.
If this is the point of view held by planning authorities I do not think we can place full reliance on the Town and Country Planning Act for the preservation of our ancient monuments and beauty spots. Let me call attention also to the way some of the 1,500 town-planning authorities look upon the Act. In five advertisements asking for fully trained town-planning assistants for the town-planning authorities the highest salary offered was £300 a year and the lowest £200 a year, less than an ordinary foreman bricklayer gets for his work. Yet these men are supposed to be advisers to authorities in matters which will involve control in some cases for at least 50 years. It is perfectly ridiculous. They might just as well give one of their office boys half a crown a week extra and tell him to mug up the subject. It would almost be as intelligent as what they are attempting to-day.
Until the Town and Country Planning Act is administered with vastly more enthusiasm than is shown to-day, we cannot rely very much on it. Another hon. Member will deal with the subject of the Housing Acts, so I shall not waste the time of the House by referring further to them. As to the Minister of Transport, I want most sincerely to congratulate him on those recommendations—unfortunately, only recommendations—which we have seen in the papers to-day. I sincerely hope that in future he will make it his rule to insist on these recommendations being adopted before he gives his grants to local authorities. In the recent past in many road widenings and bypasses many local authorities have quite ruthlessly handled the buildings or cottages on the sides of the roadway. I suppose that the Minister of Transport really is a great champion for the preservation of our town and country in the Cabinet. If he is not, he ought to be. When he sees fine old individual homes


continuously being pulled down and great blocks of flats housing 50 families taking their place, he must sadly realise it is making his town traffic problem almost insoluable. Ribbon development must make the number of accidents for which he is to an extent held responsible all the more trying to bear. I hope, indeed, that he will push this matter of preservations of amenities most actively in the Cabinet.
I would call the attention of the Minister who is to reply to two practically parallel cases in connection with road widening. The Minister I believe knows the London-Folkestone road quite well. It has just been widened. It runs through practically open country. Already it has a crop of ribbon dwellings beside it, with some of the most unpleasant petrol pumps that can be seen, many small but growing Peacehavens, and sides like rough railway cuttings in places. There is no planting of any sort and a number of shack stalls have been allowed to gather along the sides. A parallel case is another that, I believe, the Minister ought to know. It is the road between New York and Greenwich. That also has recently been widened, and runs through similar open country. There is not a single atom of ribbon development upon it. There are secondary roads along which any houses are built. There are overhead crossings with very attractive stone bridges, and there are no petrol pumps beside the road. Where needed they have been built back from the road. Trees and bushes have been planted and it is altogether a most charming highway, like a country road for all of its length. There is no reason why we should not have had exactly the same here.
As to the Minister of Agriculture, he comes twice and very prominently into the situation as regards preservation. When we were discussing town and country planning on another occasion, the Minister who will reply explained that the Ordnance Survey was much out of date and said that this was a reason why we had not had more action in town and country planning. There were the War and other delays, and some of the maps were 20 and some 40 years old. A discussion took place between the Ministries concerned to ascertain what could be done about it. There are 4,000 maps required and it was promised that

1,200 of them would be ready by the end of 1938. Until then we cannot really push ahead actively and successfully with this important matter. The other instance where the Minister of Agriculture enters is in connection with the catchment boards. Those boards have a very great responsibility. They have to prevent floods and in many instances they have to cut out bends and projections in the rivers. Certainly some of the boards look after amenities and leave the rivers very attractive when they have finished. But that is not always the case.
I will refer to just one case that I know well. It is on a bend of the Medway where, to-day, there are some of the most charming willows and bushes growing against the edge of the river. The board is going to cut down those willows and the proposal now is to plant in their place a number of poplars 10 feet high and 30 feet back from the bank. It will look like the Regent's Canal, with a number of green Belisha Beacons standing away back from it, when it is finished. The responsibility here again is divided. There is the Minister of Agriculture and there are the county council and the catchment board, but there is no one really in control. That sort of thing is largely responsible for the trouble or dissatisfaction in much of the work of these boards.
Others in this Debate will deal with the defilement of landscapes, and the destruction of beloved old cottages, but I would refer to a few glaring and inexcusable examples of vandalism that I have seen in London, where the absence of compulsion is daily permitting destruction beyond power to estimate. In each case there has been a widespread public protest, but without avail. I have mentioned Carlton House Terrace. But look at Adelphi Terrace. We have all seen illustrations of what is to be put there. Has the nation gained by the change? Lansdowne House is another case. They have butchered and buried Lansdowne House. Really we must not let London be Berkeley-Squared out of existence. But I fear that is what we are doing. What do they do in France? Take a parallel case. Behind the facade of those old buildings in the Place Vendome, the Ritz Hotel, the Morgan Bank and commercial con-structures have been allowed, but the facade cannot be touched. Why cannot we do the same?
One thing I will protest against, and I believe I have the House with me in doing so. I refer to the scandalous introduction of the blatant shop fronts of the multiple shops in the middle of our village streets. Go into some of our most charming old villages and you see these multiple shop fronts. They have colours of their own which may be good for advertising, but are very bad for amenity. Take the towns in the commercial North, where they have not many very old beautiful buildings. A good many of those towns have very charming hillsides adjoining the outskirts. Owing to lack of proper planning these slopes are being spotted and speckled with dreary uninteresting small houses and the one bit of beauty for all the townspeople to enjoy is being taken away from them. All of these things are beyond recall; we cannot get them back. But there are some things that can be done. At this moment there are those buildings in the corner of Soho Square, Two of the most charming are about to be pulled down. Then there is Reynolds's House in Leicester Square, a building that probably has as much history connected with it as any in London going back to Saxon times, and this seems doomed without a chance of saving. Then there are Wren's churches in the city, going one by one. Another case is St. Paul's Church, Sheffield.
I could go on indefinitely. What happens? Public outcries occur. Where is the power to prevent these buildings being pulled down? It is agreed by everyone that anyone who builds must comply with regulations. Why cannot everyone who pulls down equally comply with some appropriate regulations? In our present-day craze for speed or profit anyone can cite sad instances of the existing laws failing to prevent the ripping down of houses and cottages, the chopping down of trees, the wrecking of lovely landscapes, the ruin of the charm of our country lanes and our rivers, the plastering of advertisements all over our cliffs; and, if we want to unquestionably stop this, the only way is for private purchase. What does the nation as a whole gain by these destructions? That is the problem we have to face. Is not the whole nation losing? Can this sort of thing be stopped? I believe that it can.
In my Motion I beg the Government to ascertain whether its powers are adequate, and, if not, to ascertain what is needed. I realise that it is quite unlikely

that Parliamentary time can be given to the subject in the reasonably near future. With the colossal expenditure that has to be met for rearmament it is not likely that very much will be granted as a special grant by the Treasury. We have already had sufficient piecemeal legislation on this subject. The next time we touch it we want to make a thorough and final job of it. I suggest to the Government that they appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health or the Office of Works. It is immaterial if it is for some reason difficult to so designate him and whether the appointment carries pay with it or not. There are men willing to make a sacrifice in order to get this important work done. Give this secretary an honorary advisory committee, made up of those who have spent their lives on this subject—such men as Sir Lawrence Chubb, Sir Guy Dawber, of the C.P.R.E.; and Professor A. E. Richardson, of London University. Let that committee with that secretary co-ordinate all the voluntary amenity bodies in the country. There exist between 150 and 200 voluntary and enthusiastic bodies which would be only too pleased to be helpful in this condition.
Then I suggest this: To follow the very practical and logical process that was initiated by the Minister of Health when he required a survey for his slum clearance proposals, and had a survey prepared of the entire nation. Get all those bodies under the leadership of this committee to take a survey of the entire country. The survey would reveal the monuments that could or should be saved; the villages, houses, cottages, churches, bridges, the hilltops, rivers, banks and woods, where roads should go and should not go, and where they should by-pass. In fact, it could reveal the whole story of what we possess, and then we could judge what it is vital to preserve and what is not so vital, and stop the present hit-and-miss legislation. With this knowledge final and comprehensive legislation could be designed.
The survey might take at least a year, and possibly a year and a half or even two years, also to fully co-ordinate and prepare any Bills that would have to be brought before this House. By that time, however, I am sure we all trust the present trying armaments situation would have clarified itself and the Government


might not feel that it was unable to make grants on a vital matter of this sort. I hope the Government will feel justified in taking up and clearing up this most important subject. We do not want any more piecemeal efforts. In conclusion, all hon. Members will agree that this generation did not bring these objects of charm and beauty into the world and cannot take them out of it; we are only life trustees, and it is our duty to stop the relentless destruction that is now proceeding. I hope the House will support this Motion with enthusiasm, and I hope the Minister will accept it and soon translate its object into beneficial action which will lead to an early termination of this preventable condition.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to second the Motion.
This is the third time since this Session began a few weeks ago that the preservation of rural England has been put down for discussion on a Wednesday afternoon by a private Member lucky in the Ballot. That is evidence of the deep interest which the House takes in the matter. It would indeed be surprising if the destruction of the countryside were not very much in the minds and on the consciences of hon. Members. In England, a much larger proportion of the population is cooped up in towns than in any other country. Yet the Englishman is at heart a countryman, and when he finds himself in the town he craves to get away from it. I believe that the week-end and the season ticket were both invented in England. To-day the townsman, at any rate the working man, has more leisure and better means of enjoying it than he had 50 or 100 years ago. But we have the curious paradox that when he leaves the town in search of the country he finds the country receding, like a mirage, further and further away. "Come and live in an orchard!" shouts the builder's advertisement, but that builder has his tongue in his cheek. He knows very well that within three months of the agreement being signed every apple tree will have been cut down. The nineteenth century permitted the industrial revolution to destroy our towns; are we going to allow the twentieth Century to destroy the country? As somebody has asked, are we going to turn the silken purse which

we have—the most beautiful in the whole world—into a sow's ear?
On the two previous occasions this Session when this subject has been debated, the Government, in defence, have drawn attention to the progress which is being made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932; to the activities of the local planning authorities, and of the voluntary organisations which are doing such splendid work; and to the purchase by local authorities of open spaces. I hope that to-day the Government will not be content with dwelling on past achievements or on present arrangements, but that we really shall have some promise of further action, I admit that about half the area of this country has been brought under some sort of control by the local planning authorities. I do not overlook the work of local authorities and voluntary organisations in connection with open spaces. I think that the work of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Society for the Preservation of Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths has been beyond all praise. I am grateful for the splendid success of the National Trust and for the generosity of the landowners, who have not only given many beautiful pieces of country to that Trust, but have also thrown open other pieces of country to the public or have submitted to covenants restricting building. Naturally I welcome, with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), to-day's memorandum by the Ministry of Transport laying emphasis on the preservation of amenities on roads. But all that is not enough.
I have no desire to exaggerate, but I ask whether any hon. Member will deny—whether the Government will deny?—that the unnecessary destruction of rural amenities continues every clay on a vast scale, offending the conscience of all intelligent people. The Government cannot evade responsibility by pointing to the powers of the local planning authorities, if the exercise of those powers is not being effective. Five years ago, the Government spokesman who introduced the Town and Country Planning Bill told the House that it was a Bill to enable the nation to economise its great resources. Do the Government really think that the Town and Country Planning Act has been successful in that regard? If not, I suggest it is their duty


to bring forward proposals to strengthen the existing law.
Every sensible person realises that the needs of the present generation must be met. No reasonable man wishes to suppress progress or development. Nobody desires to treat the countryside of England as a museum piece. What we want is orderly, seemly and efficient development, so that the economic advantages of new buildings may not be too dearly paid for by losses in other directions. I suggest that a just balance is possible between conservation and development.
What is required? It is hardly for private Members to lay down what the Government ought to do; if the disease exists, it is up to the Government to find a remedy; but I would like to put forward two or three suggestions. In the first place, there should be a central authority, either of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend or on a more ambitious scale, which should be charged with positive planning functions and not merely, as at present, with the vetting of the plans of the local planning authorities and the hearing of appeals from their decisions. The duty of such a central planning authority would be twofold. First, it should hold a survey—I think of a somewhat wider nature than that which was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone—of the whole of the national resources and needs. It should correlate the knowledge, the schemes and the land requirements of the Government Departments and private owners, and it should pay special attention at this time, of course, to the location of industry in relation to the distressed areas and to the growth of London. In a word, for I wish to be brief, the central planning authority should initiate a national plan, a master scheme for both town and country, which could be moulded as required. It goes without saying that such a plan would include a catalogue of areas of special beauty. The State already schedules ancient buildings which are worthy of preservation. Why should it not also schedule what are commonly called beauty spots? A great deal of work has already been done by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen, in particular, a complete survey of the County of Cornwall which has

been prepared by the local branch of that Council.
The second function of such a central planning authority would be to supervise the existing local planning authorities in order to secure that they are efficient and that their work is co-ordinated. Under the present system, control and progress are left to a vast number of separate independent local authorities, some of whom are efficient and some of whom are not. Some of those local planning authorities carry out the powers entrusted to them by Parliament, but some don't and some won't. I have no time to survey their work, but I will say a word or two on one aspect of that work. Under Section 12 of the 1932 Act, the authority has the right to control elevations, that is to say, to supervise the height, design, and external appearance of new buildings, and to approve or disapprove the plan. It has the sole power to make or mar the countryside—to make it by permitting inoffensive buildings well suited to their environment or to mar it by admitting unseemly and illiterate designs, such as mock Tudor, pink roofs and all the other abominations with which we are so familiar. And mark this, from the plans which are approved by the local planning authority, there is no appeal.
This is an enormously important work, and to help the local planning authorities in it a committee was set up under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) to establish advisory panels of architects. All over the country these advisory panels of architects are available and their advice is free of charge. If the local authority does not want to make use of these panels, there are two other alternatives open to it. It can appoint a special committee for elevations and co-opt architects on it, or, of course, it can appoint architects of its own. Extremely useful work has been done by these architects under one or other of these schemes, and experience shows that buildings the plans of which they approve are no more expensive than others. An inoffensive building is not necessarily any more costly than an offensive building, and it may be cheaper.
Unfortunately at the present time there is no compulsion on the local planning authority to employ architects, and a vast number of buildings is being put up with-


out the plans having been approved by an architect. If it were otherwise, should we see springing up around our great cities miles upon miles of new houses, of odious shape and colour, unsuitable to their environment and covered with mean and expensive ornament—scabs on the countryside? I suggest that in the architects we have a powerful weapon ready to our hand for preventing the erection of buildings which are destructive of amenities. Yet three or four years after the Act came into force and the panels were formed, this pestilence continues. Do not the Government think it time that local planning authorities be compelled by law to employ architects?
So much for improving the machinery of town and country planning. I wish now to make an appeal to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer even though they are not in their places, and I am sorry that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has just left the Chamber. It happens, as one would expect, that some of the most glorious stretches of English scenery are in the most sparsely populated districts, where the county authorities have the smallest financial resources. Those authorities cannot provide the funds for acquiring beautiful pieces of country, and if they seek to prevent building they are faced with claims for compensation. That applies particularly to two kinds of beautiful country. First, there are wild areas like the Lake District, and other areas which were suggested by the National Parks Committee as suitable for national parks. That committee suggested that the modest sum of £100,000 per annum for five years should be provided by the Treasury. That sum was refused although it is less than the amount spent by the Treasury on the London parks. I am astonished that provincial Members have never pressed home this point about the London parks. How long would it take for the Lake District to become a national park if this House sat in Carlisle, or even in Manchester? How long would it take for the Vale of Neath to become a national park if Parliament sat in Swansea instead of London?
Money is also urgently required for the conservation of our sea coast. The seashore has been the playground of England since the days of King Canute,

and every effort should be made to safeguard the public access and enjoyment. Yet the magical beauty of cliff and cove is being disfigured more and more every day by repulsive bungalows and villas. The ribboning of the coast of England is just as bad and is making just as rapid progress as ever the ribboning of our main roads did. We shall no doubt be told that local authorities have it in their power to plan the coasts in their areas and prevent that sort of thing. They have the power, but if they try to exercise it by restricting building they are immediately faced with claims for compensation. Pembrokeshire contains some of the most magnificent coast scenery to be found in these islands. Yet in Pembrokeshire a penny rate produces only £700. It is utter nonsense to tell the Pembrokeshire County Council that it is within their power to preserve the scenery of the Pembrokeshire coast. I urge that both for the preservation of coastal scenery, and for the preservation of other wild areas such as I have mentioned, a central fund should be available. I beg the Prime Minister, who has this subject very much at heart, to take that proposal into consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I fear, is more hard-hearted, and he may ask, "What should I get in return for such expenditure?" My reply is that if the destruction of loveliness in our country continues as rapidly in the future as in the past, or even if it continues at all, many of the tourists who now bring millions of money into this country, in order to enjoy its gardenlike enchantment, will in the future stay away. I believe they are already beginning to stay away for that very reason. We are driving away the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I do not however appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer mainly on that ground. Surely beauty is worth preserving for its own sake. We spend £400,000 a year on the London Museums, largely on the care of works of art. We gave £50,000 for the Codex Sinaiticus. Could not we spare something for the preservation of rural England, which is itself a work of art, not the work of God alone but also of man? Its flowering hedgerows, fields, woodlands, and villages are all part of our English civilisation, which has taken centuries to mature.
Is not such a native masterpiece as well worth preserving as the masterpieces of foreign artists?
I have one more argument to address to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he looks through the items of the national Budget he will find that nearly all our expenditure is devoted to wasting assets. The land of England is our only permanent asset, and once you destroy its beauty you can never replace it. If the loveliness of the English countryside be destroyed, then you deprive English literature, art, religion and education of one of their principal sources of inspiration, and you strike a blow at the very soul of the people. Nobody realises that more than the Prime Minister. I urge him to take action.

4.39 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: The Motion has been moved and seconded, and it is usual on these occasions that the third speaker in the Debate should oppose the Motion. In this case however the third speaker—with I think the rest of the House—is in favour of the Motion, and, therefore, opposition does not play its usual part in these proceedings. The Labour party are not usually considered conservative, but we are conservative when it is a case of conserving the natural beauty of England. We are conservative when it is a case of conserving a national asset, and perhaps our principal national asset is the beauty of England. If I sometimes thought, while listening to the Mover of the Motion, that we had in him an admirable recruit to the ranks of Socialism, I also reflected that in this case Socialism and Conservatism are bound together. They are in one camp with one object. The only question is, how are we to do this thing? Why have we waited so long before bringing forward a proposal for a general survey of the beauties of England and the shaping of legislation to preserve those beauties?
In my recollection planning proposals have been brought forward over and over again. We have frequently introduced legislation for tinkering with this question, but never before has the issue been frankly faced. The question is what additional powers are required by Government in order to preserve the natural beauties of England. I remember when the original housing and town planning Measure was introduced in 1909. Every-

body thought the result of that Bill would be an immediate resurrection of our towns, that we would put an end to the old Victorian haphazard method of growth and that genuine development on decent and beautiful lines would take its place. That Measure failed and every subsequent Measure of the kind has failed, and the failure continues to-day, now that we have extended our planning proposals from the town to the country. The Town and Country Planning Act, introduced only three years ago or so, is dead. Schemes are continually brought forward but few of them reach the stage at which they become compulsory upon all landlords and the whole area concerned. As long as a scheme is not compulsory it is valueless for preserving anything. It was said of the original 1909 Measure that it had at least this merit, that it enabled landlords to plan their own property, but it never allowed any local authority to town plan anybody else's property.
The real difficulty is compensation. What are you prepared to pay people to be decent? In this case compensation and blackmail gradually come together. Methods of securing a decent layout of the country have hitherto been left to the local authorities. This Motion seeks to have a central authority. When for over 20 years we have tried to deal with this subject solely through the local authorities, it is a big thing to say now, not merely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall supply the necessary stimulus, but that the actual administrative work shall be done centrally instead of locally. The proposal will meet with considerable opposition, but by all means let us pass this Motion and put it into operation. Let us have an inquiry and see what can be done, even now, to promote the salvation of the beauties of England by tackling the question at the right end.
I am sorry to refer to an old subject, but this whole problem would be easier if we had now a valuation of the land of England and the buildings upon it. Once you have a valuation you know what you have to pay. At present the compensation is utterly vague. No one knows what has to be paid and that, inevitably, increases the fees of surveyors, architects and lawyers, and the ultimate decision is always at the expense of the public. It is no wonder that the Treasury and local authorities jib at paying an


excessive price for beauty. If we only had a valuation such as I have described, the scheme would be infinitely simpler. It is possible that the report of such a committee as is here suggested might be to the effect that a valuation should now be made of these beautiful valleys, mountains and woodlands, which we desire to preserve, so that the public would not be excessively bled in the cost of retaining the beauties of our countryside. This is an extremely suitable moment to bring this question forward. In the first place, we have had a revolution in transport, which for the first time has taught most people in this country something about England. All that we saw of England before was from the railway train, but now we know England infinitely more closely than we ever did before. Cycling has increased to such an enormous extent that the working-class public know England and appreciate her beauties much more than ever before. This change is being taken advantage of now by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion.
But there is more than that. You have seen all over England within the last 10 years, and perhaps longer, but more especially in the last 10 years, the growth of all these societies for precisely this purpose. You have seen the excellent work done by the Ancient Monuments branch of the Government. Wherever you go in England now, you see old abbeys and old castles renovated and preserved and made infinitely more interesting, with written accounts of their history and of what each part represents. That has all been done quite recently, and those excellent books that are being brought out for each county emphasise the fact that some work has been done with universal approval and at a very small expense. Then you have also the work of the National Trust, which is gradually acquiring these beauty spots, but the National Trust is relying inevitably upon the generosity of particular individuals. You have all over the country now these preserved beauty spots, for which generous people have subscribed in order to preserve them. Only the other day I was glad to see that our old colleague in this House, Sir Charles Trevelyan, had presented to the National Trust his magnificent place at Wallington and 50,000 acres besides.
That is, I hope, a growing way of dealing with the problem of the overgrown country houses that we can no longer afford to occupy and that, with our reduced families, we can no longer fill.
Both the preservation of the ancient monuments and the work of the National Trust have made this question of infinitely greater importance and understood by the man in the street in a way that it has not been understood before, and all that is asked for in this Motion is that the Government should appoint a committee to consider what should be done. I do not attach much importance to your panels of architects. Most of the atrocities that we see around us have been built by architects. I do not even attach much importance to the co-ordination and discovery of the 160 bodies about England that are doing this work on voluntary lines to-day. What I think is really wanted is a committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), which shall go into the whole question of what legislation is required in order to put before us something concrete instead of a vague aspiration after preservation. What we really want is to see the thing in the shape of a Bill, though I am half afraid that when I see it I shall be opposing it on some Friday afternoon; but the great thing is to see what is practical at the present time. I part company with the hon. Member opposite when he suggests that we ought to preserve rural England exactly as it is to-day. I want to see the town populations living in the country and not having to get there. Ribbon development is not a horror to me. I say, "Thank goodness, there is somebody who was living in a slum but who is now living in the country." The hon. Member will have to bear that in mind when he gets in committee and is framing his legislation. Do not preserve things as they are for the sake of preserving things as they are, but preserve what is worth while to enable people to enjoy them for ever.
One of the difficulties which we are up against is the question of compensation, another difficulty is the question of the rival interests of local authorities and the central authority, but by far the greatest obstacle which we are up against is the stupidity of mankind, the lack of foresight, the lack of looking forward. If,


instead of raising, say, a tithe loan, or whatever it may be, we could put that amount of money into buying at their present values all these places that we want to preserve, I think we should get our dividends back, our interest on the loan, more securely than we shall by endowing the Church of England. We have to consider also not merely the question of the countryside, but the question of the buildings themselves, and there we are up against a much more difficult proposition. If the hon. Member is going round all the small villages in this country and scheduling the houses to be preserved, he will be struck immediately by one feature, and that is that every village that he goes to will want the whole of that village preserved. There will he no lack of desire in any locality for the expenditure of public money upon that locality, and a process of severe selection will have to be undertaken before we are to buy and preserve by buying.
It is easy enough to deal with uninhabited castles and abbeys, and to deal with any property if it is valued first and not after the hon. Gentleman has got into the market. But it is not so easy when you have an unlimited number of people demanding the preservation of an unlimited number of buildings. If you are going to spend your money taking down all the petrol pumps and putting them up elsewhere, I think it will be a waste of money, and you will find that every petrol pump-owner will jump at the opportunity of getting something for removing his pump. Above all, prepare your plans for preserving England, but remember that you have to do it by a practical scheme, which has to win the assent of the Treasury and the Government benches, and get your committee going to see how that can be managed.

4.53 p.m.

Sir Alfred Beit: Contrary to the impression in the minds of some hon. Members, I think that existing legislation on this subject, the Ancient Monuments Acts and the Town Planning Act are sufficient to carry out the purpose of saving the ancient monuments to which they refer, but the trouble is that the definition of the words "ancient monuments" has probably been limited by the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. The shortcoming there is that the terms of reference to that Royal Commission, which was set

up in 1908, refer to ancient monuments up to the date 1700, and though when that Commission was recommitted on the accession of King George V the terms of reference were widened to bring it up to the year 1714, thus including the important reign of Queen Anne, the whole of the architecture of the later years of Vanbrugh, the whole of the architecture of William Kent, the brothers Adam, and the Regency school, is excluded from the survey made by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments.
The other great shortcoming in this matter is, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), that all occupied dwelling-houses are excluded from the scope of the Act. The Royal Commission which was set up in 1908 has so far made inventories in England of only five counties and of London, and I would like to know whether it would not be possible in some manner to expedite this work, because at the present rate of progress it will take several centuries before the whole of the work of cataloguing our ancient monuments is completed. I have read the prefaces of several of these catalogues, which are to be found in the Library here and which are, I think, the most admirable guide-books that anybody could read anywhere, and in all of them I have seen that the work has been handicapped by the lack of staff which is at the disposition of the Royal Commission. Therefore, I think one of the first things that we ought to press for is that this work should be expedited, because I believe that the schedule of ancient monuments, judging from the list drawn up by the Commissioners of Works, is to some extent based upon the reports and the inventories issued by the Royal Commission.
I would like to ask my hon. Friend who is going to reply whether the Office of Works schedule for preservation includes any buildings subsequent to the year 1714 or whether they accept the definition of ancient monuments as stated in the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that the Commissioners of Works have undertaken a magnificent task in preserving some of the greater ruins in this country, and have made many improvements in the


areas immediately surrounding them, but could not the Act governing this matter be amended so as to include occupied dwelling-houses? Alternatively, have the Commissioners of Works ever taken over private houses which their owners are no longer able to occupy when those houses were still in a good condition, or is it a fact that they have in all cases been obliged to wait until those houses have become ruins? I have often heard of cases of owners of private houses of architectural or historical interest seeking tenants rent free if only they would keep up the property, and I would like to know whether it is not possible for the Commissioner of Works, under existing legislation, to take on this task. A further suggestion that I would like to make, which I believe has been adopted in certain countries on the Continent, is in reference to the case of houses occupied by their owners, who find it difficult to keep them in good condition. It those owners allow access to the public on certain days in the week, I suggest that they should be offered a remission of some of the rates and taxes that they have to pay on their houses.
I have consulted the Indian Ancient Monuments (Preservation) Act, 1904, which was introduced by the late Lord Curzon and has been of extraordinary use in preserving for all time the great monuments of that country for the enjoyment of the public. That Act largely follows the Act which we have here, but it introduces certain other sections, which I think we might well copy, with regard to the traffic in antiquities. In the Indian Act, owing to the conditions prevailing there, special protection is given to sculptural carvings, bas-reliefs, and inscriptions which have an essential local connection, but when some of us think of the staircases, chimney pieces, and the like which have been removed from English homes and sometimes exported to far countries, I think we might also feel that some restriction of this traffic might be introduced, if at some future time it is possible to introduce further legislation on the subject which we are discussing to-day.
The Ancient Monuments Act seems sufficient to protect the monuments to which it refers, but, as has been made clear in the Debate, it is not sufficient to protect the face of London and other great

cities. What would have happened to the Place Vendome if it had been in London instead of Paris? Perhaps the same as has happened to Nash's Regent Street. What would have happened to some of those highly interesting seventeenth and eighteenth century churches in Rome had they been in London? They would probably have suffered the same fate as many similar constructions by Wren. Reference was made to the recent destruction of the Adelphi, and it is unquestionably the fact that a Private Bill was introduced here and given a Third Reading which authorised this lamentable change. If the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments, on which the scheduling is based, had been extended from 1714 to any subsequent date—I should prefer that it should be extended to include any important building which is likely to become of interest in the future—it might very well have been possible many years ago to schedule the Adelphi for preservation. Carlton House Terrace, which was also built subsequent to 1714, suffered from two disabilities. One was that it was so built, and the other was that it was an occupied dwelling house and was not, therefore, affected by any existing Act on the Statute Book.
In common with many other members of the public, I have in recent years much enjoyed the art exhibitions organised for charity by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I am sorry that he is not present to-day, because I should like to give him a suggestion, if he needs one, for a future exhibition. I suggest an exhibition of changing London illustrated by paintings and photographs. If such an exhibition were to be held, what would there be on the credit side? There would be certain development schemes, such as Kingsway and the Thames Embankment. What would there be on the debit side? There would be a lamentable series of pictures representing the destruction of countless characteristic beautiful buildings, corners and places, and their replacement by some of the worst architecture that has ever degraded a great city.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I am sure that the House and the country will be deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) for bringing forward a matter of such general and great importance. One


aspect of it was dealt with in December in a Debate, which I initiated, on the subject of national parks, and I recognise that in some speeches to-day further and keen support has been expressed for them. I do not propose to say anything further on that subject to-day beyond stating that, although the immediate reply given by the Minister on that occasion was disappointing, I feel that a development may take place and that the Minister has, at any rate, shown himself willing to consider any practical points where the powers of town planning are not operating which may be brought to his attention. I feel sure that he intends to deal with the matter in a sincerely sympathetic spirit. I propose to leave that aspect of the matter there for the moment, and to say a few words with reference to the preservation of historic or artistic buildings.
I am sure that everybody would desire that some machinery should be set up to prevent their destruction or, at any rate, to secure that proper consideration should be given to the question of their preservation before destruction has actually taken place, unknown, perhaps, to anybody but the owners. We want some machinery to secure that before any building of this kind is destroyed or sold the matter shall he brought to the attention of some public authority. I suggest that in case of doubt the Government Department concerned—perhaps the Ministry of Health—should refer it as a matter of course to the Royal Fine Art Commission who would have the task of expressing a view whether the building was worth preserving in the national interest and whether it would be possible from a practical point of view to incorporate the old fabric in any new structure that it might be intended to put up. The National Trust, or perhaps some other body, should be given the opportunity of saying what it could do to secure such financial support as might be needed. There is no reason why some of that financial support should not come from the Government. If, in spite of all these precautions, it was found not possible to raise the money, I suppose that the destruction would take place, but it would be in a much more limited number of cases than happens at the present time.
Some reference has been made to the practice of other countries in these matters, and I should like to give an

example from my own experience. That is in the very beautiful, and yet, at the moment, very sad city of Danzig. I suppose that there are few cities in the world that have more beautiful houses in their streets. They have been preserved for a very long time and it is the law there—one of the laws which I hope is to be observed—that if any particular house has to be pulled down in one of these well-known streets, it must be replaced in exactly the same style as the others in the street. One of the great dangers that is always occurring in connection with the destruction of beautiful buildings is the concentration of the owner, whether an individual, or a Government Department, or a corporation, on the purely financial aspects of the problem. It is natural that the main consideration of owners of property should be what a building will fetch rather than that they should look on the aesthetic side first. We want to see that, in the public interest, that consideration is not overlooked.
I am going to give examples of authorities and Government Departments where this is occurring at the present time. It was said the other day, in reply to a question I put to the Government, that the Royal Fine Art Commission is the body which can be called upon by Government Departments and public authorities for advice in any case of this kind. That is true, but they do not in fact do it. They do in certain cases, but there are a large number of cases where this aspect of the question is neglected altogether. The main Government Departments and the Office of Works have the Commission to refer to, and the Crown Lands Commissioners have an advisory committee of their own which was appointed owing to certain accidental circumstances which are familiar to us. It is difficult to see why in principle they should not take exactly the same advice as the other Government Departments from the much more effective body, the Royal Fine Art Commission. I do not want to say anything derogatory to the distinguished members of the Crown Lands Advisory Committee, but it obviously has not the wide experience of the other body.
There are other bodies which should seek advice. There are the Ecclesiastical Commission, the Charity Commission, and even the Forestry Commission. They do not give the attention that is deserved


to the aesthetic aspect of these things. The Ecclesiastical Commission are notorious for the fact that money is the thing that bulks largely in their eyes, and the name of the commission makes it rather surprising to find that they concentrate so little on the spiritual side and so greatly on the purely financial side. I am not blaming them, because for them it is a matter of administration, of business, and of getting the money. They ought, however, to be checked and controlled. They have not among their own staff people really competent to give proper advice on a matter of this kind, and they will not go to the people who have been provided by the Government to give advice. I feel very strongly that before bodies of that kind are permitted to perform any acts of destruction, it should be made mandatory upon them that the opinion of the Royal Fine Art Commission should be taken.
I want in this connection to pay a tribute to the splendid work that has been done during the last few years by the Royal Fine Art Commission presided over in such an inspiring manner by Lord Crawford. That body contains some of the most distinguished architects and others in the country, who give their services without charge, services which, if employed professionally, would command large sums. They are working on a purely voluntary basis, and the interesting point that arises is that in cases where their opinion has been taken upon some new building, or new municipal structure, or new bridge, they have been able in the course of friendly discussions with the authorities concerned to make suggestions which have resulted in saving enormous sums in construction. It would be interesting to find out the sum of money saved in this way by the commission in their excellent work. They have only a small staff, and I look forward to the future when it will have very largely increased, and when it will have been made a condition of any grant of public money that the approval of the commission shall first be obtained.
I would like to give an example of the sort of thing that has happened in the past in England owing to the absence of powers of this kind. It refers to an incident in my own constituency. The corporation of Wolverhampton is usually a singularly progressive and enlightened

body, but there was an occasion about 20 years ago when it seemed to me that they hardly lived up to their usual high standard. Until 1846 the Deanery of Windsor was linked with the Deanery of Wolverhampton. In that way a number of distinguished men occupied the dual office. Towards the end of the seventeenth century a building was erected there, under the influence certainly of Christopher Wren, whose father and uncle were Deans of Windsor, and it remained until 20 years ago as the only beautiful building of that period left in the town. It was a very fine example of domestic architecture of its kind. Then the site was purchased for a technical college, and the question arose of what was to happen to this singularly attractive building. Plans were got out on a voluntary basis with the object of showing how it could be incorporated magnificently, as administrative offices, with the technical college, but, unfortunately, the local view could not see the value which the national view would place on the building, and a decision was taken to pull it down. That is a permanent loss to the town and the whole of that neighbourhood. If it had been part of the policy of this country at that time to say that no grant—because a grant of public money was to be given—should be given without a report from the Royal Fine Art Commission I am sure that commission would have recommended a scheme which would have ensured the preservation of that fine building.
Some reference has been made to the preservation of country houses, and it is interesting to note the developments that are taking place under the administration of the National Trust. Many owners of such houses are looking with doubt towards the remote, and often the immediate, future, wondering how they can keep them going even into the next generation, and on the analogy of what is happening in France and other countries the idea is growing up that the owners of those houses should hand them over to the National Trust—endowed by the owner, but preserved by the National Trust—with public access, but with an option, not on a legal, but on a purely voluntary basis, for the existing owner and his family to reside there as long as they care to do so. The great point about such houses is that the public do not want to see them simply as museums;


they want to see them as houses which are being lived in, and from that point of view I think the development which is taking place should be encouraged in every way by public opinion. If the State, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can give any help, I think that point ought to be considered. I have only intervened to make a few suggestions which I think may be helpful. I hope the Minister will appreciate once again that he has a unanimous House on this subject, and that he will be encouraged to do everything possible to further the objects before us, as I am sure he would personally desire.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) for bringing this subject forward and making such a delightful contribution to the Debate. We know his interest in this matter, and we really did expect that he would "fill the bill." I remember the occasion, many years ago now, when I saw my first cathedral, and a lady friend who was with me said: "You know, this has never been built, it has grown." That seemed to me a very apt phrase. The cathedral was in such perfect harmony with its surroundings that it did seem that it had grown rather than been built. Some time after I had the opportunity of reading the works of William Morris, who wrote very charmingly about our ancient buildings. He talked of the marvellous craftsmanship which had been expended on them, and about the joy which the individual had felt when he was carving those, shall I say, barbarous gargoyles and those wonderful decorations; and that set the line for me so far as beautiful buildings are concerned. If anyone were to attempt or to propose to destroy one of our ancient cathedrals, or to pull down some of our old abbeys, even though they may be in ruins, there would be a public outcry against it, and rightly so. A national conscience has been growing up with regard to those very fine buildings, which are representative of all that is best in English architecture, and perhaps represent a wonderful period of English labour, a period in which the craftsman could express his individuality on the work under his hands. From that point of view we are all delighted to know that the people of this country are determined to preserve our cathedrals—I speak of

the major cathedrals, such as Lincoln, York and Westminster—and to act as trustees to hand them on to future generations in the shape in which they are to-day.
If we go to some of our beautiful old villages, the villages in the Cotswolds and in Devonshire and Derbyshire, there, again, we shall find a wonderfully charming architecture. I think it was the Prime Minister who said on one occasion that this village architecture was wedded in a very peculiar way to the landscape in which it was situated, because it was in local stone. The main theme of the buildings was simplicity and not over-decoration, and the old builders had created them very beautifully. I listened with some degree of trepidation to my right hon. and gallant Friend on the Front Bench here when he spoke about making a ruthless selection, because I am afraid he would spoil the whole group, and leave a vestige of these ancient villages stuck out in a world of commonplace buildings. I cannot support him on those lines. I know some of the Derbyshire villages very well. To men coming from the South they may look, to some extent, hard and forbidding, but one has to remember that they are built from that marvellous stone which we get out of Derbyshire, gritstone, which weathers rather dark. Taken in conjunction with the stone hedges, they fall naturally and beautifully into the landscape, and are characteristic of the county, and it would be vandalism of the worst type to pick and choose which building should he left.
One has not to go very far along the Derbyshire roads before coming also to the old limestone villages. We see whole villages built out of limestone and weathered very beautifully. Generally speaking, it would be difficult to find in all the country anything more beautiful and more harmonious than an unspoiled Derbyshire village, and I feel that we should all like to see such villages preserved in their entirety. When I read the other day that the Government had given somebody a licence to bore for oil in Derbyshire I felt a great deal of anxiety, because if one could imagine them boring for oil on the top of Kinderscout they would spoil a countryside which has definite and strong claims to become a national park.
I agree that to some extent this subject is bound up with town planning, and as chairman of a town planning committee I should like to point out what I consider to be some of the shortcomings of legislation dealing with it. Town planning is not merely the orderly arrangement of streets and buildings, but goes very much further than that. It is not just the restriction of ribbon development, although that is necessary. In my submission town planning connotes a far wider idea. It connotes the orderly planning of a town, the preservation of a green belt, and the preservation, too, of large stretches of country in their agricultural character. Further, town-planning authorities ought to exercise definite and drastic control over the elevations which are put up. My right hon. and gallant Friend, when talking about ribbon development, seemed to be pleased that people are living at the side of these beautiful roads, because it meant that they had been taken out of the towns. I heard a very distinguished member of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England describe a certain piece of ribbon development as "road scarlet fever," and I think there is a great deal of truth in that observation. When one sees at the sides of beautiful roads, long lines of buildings all alike, with the same round bay windows, a few tiles over the top, and probably the coigns of different material and different colour, it is enough to make one weep for the beauty of this country, and as chairman of a town planning committee I shall do my best to prevent it. There is a good deal to be said for the provision of suburban villages, with communal halls, and with control over the elevations, so that they do not outrage one's sense of beauty; but to allow long ribbons of houses to be built at the sides of our main roads is the worst ruination of scenery that one can imagine.
The hon. Member for Maidstone mentioned the imminent destruction of St. Paul's, Sheffield. I hope that he will not ascribe the blame for that to the local authorities. I should do my utmost to preserve that building, and although, possibly, it is not one of the finest types of Renaissance architecture we should certainly like to preserve it; but we are

up against those who own it and want to build about a dozen churches with the proceeds of what they get for the site. Whether this House will allow that to be done remains to be seen when the Bill comes before us. Sometimes local authorities can pay too much for the preservation of such buildings, and this is where I want to have a word with the Government. I contend that the existing legislation pertaining to these matters is neither sufficiently wide nor sufficiently drastic. Any enlightened town-planner must take into consideration the advisability of sterilising large stretches of land as green belts just outside cities, or sometimes within their borders.
Take a great industrial town like Sheffield. Had town planning been in operation 100 years ago it could have been one of the noblest cities in this or any other land. Built on seven hills, it has beautiful valleys coming down to the city. Had town planning been in operation and had the local authority been endued with powers to control development and elevations, it could have been a very worthy place. Instead of that, private enterprise has been allowed to build, and to encroach upon the glorious valleys and the hillsides, and now we are faced with a problem which is almost superhuman, if we are to do something worthy.
To continue on the subject of land; if we feel that a patch or an area of land inside the city ought to be kept as an open space for the amenities of the inhabitants, we have to pay very heavily for it. We have to pay building price for it. I think we have reached a time when we ought to say to private enterprise in this matter: "Thus far, and no farther. We are going to prevent you from spoiling our cities and ruining the countryside, and we are going to sterilise that land without paying compensation for it." Those seem drastic powers, but town planning will never be put into complete operation and brought to a satisfactory conclusion unless local authorities have the power to sterilise land and to prevent it being built upon. The Government ought to look at that question very carefully. Take ribbon development: we can prevent building within 220 feet of the centre of the road. It is possible, if powers are taken on the matter, to make very nice pathways in the villages. Wythenshaw, Man-


chester, has been made into a very nice place. But think of the enormous cost that is involved to local authorities. The Act is an impossible one for local authorities to use to the extent they would desire. The Government ought to take steps to see that local authorities have not to pay through the nose on every occasion when they acquire land in order to prevent development which would ruin their city.
I want to see a public conscience grow on this subject to compel the Government to give local authorities the power to make their villages beautiful at a minimum of expense. The only person who is responsible, as far as I can see, is the landowner who is trying to extort enormous sums from corporation or municipality. I thank the hon. Member who brought this Motion forward. It enables some of us to indicate our difficulties. I hope that the Government will take steps to bring in legislation enabling municipalities to make vast improvements in our cities.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Hannah: It is with very great pleasure that I see all parties joining to-day in regard to this great national question. The face of England and Wales for a considerable time to come may depend upon what the Government do, as a result of this Motion. I would emphasise the importance of preserving ancient buildings for succeeding generations, as well as for those who live in the present time. Every day, in this very building, we have a very inspiring example indeed in the great Westminster Hall. We see the noblest timbered roof in the world, every part of it admirably adapted to its purpose, beautifully worked out by cunning craftsmen in days gone by, and there is an enormous amount of individuality. We see new beauties in that glorious roof every day as we pass beneath it, and we realise how magnificently the work was done when it was so admirably restored. Can we feel quite the same interest in this particular Chamber? No doubt it represents the old tradition of the Tudors, but it is an obvious copy. Those pendants in the roof have no particular use. They do no work, and they do not represent cratfsmanship and the principle of construction as does the work in Westminster Hall.
We may now have a very clear definition of what we really mean by ancient buildings that are worth preserving. To me, each period has its very special charm. From the time of the Roman occupation, then at Brixworth we see the Saxons trying to reproduce the glory of Roman construction, through the Norman and Gothic periods, and the triumphant classicism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries we reach the Adam Brothers, getting new inspiration from Greek influences and from the examples which they got from the Eastern Mediterranean—from the very fount. I think we feel for all these buildings a real enthusiasm. They represent the spirit of the time and they give us true craftsmanship. They give us the ideals which England had at the time when they were raised. We then come to the period since that time, and since the sad days of the industrial revolution, about which there is now but little difference of opinion in this House. Then we have mass production, a mere imitation of work, and we have buildings, which may no doubt be useful but have not the spirit of craftsmanship. They have not the atmosphere of the past. They do not represent the ideals of any particular period.
I am most thankful that no speaker has accused antiquaries of the smallest lack of enthusiasm for the re-housing of the people. We all love these council houses, ugly as they are and we are all thankful that this magnificent work is giving our people new and better homes. Let there be no difference of opinion on that point in any part of the House. When I see what is going on, even at the present time, in what is in some respects the noblest of all mediaeval English cities, York, and, next to that, Norwich, and when I see buildings of antiquity, mediaeval fabrics, torn down and replaced by others obviously inferior, I feel terribly sore. One feels that this age is lacking in its duty. In that city which, next to Bilston, I love more than any other in the world—[Laughter]—Yes, I am a very keen antiquary, but I do love my own people at the same time—I was referring to the fair City of Edinburgh. In early days, it was one of the most interesting and splendid in the whole country, although not for any outstanding buildings, for St. Giles is not accounted one of the greatest churches in the land, and


Scotland has better palaces than Holy-rood house. The Castle itself at Edinburgh has comparatively little of real architectural interest compared with its magnificent situation. Only in Herriots Hospital do we get really first class work in Edinburgh. An enormous number of magnificent old buildings give us the very soul of Scotland of an early day. If no individual building was particularly outstanding, the general effect produced a magnificence that, in its own way, no city in Europe could rival.
We have seen one after another of those ancient monuments torn down. I am afraid that it is not an exaggeration to say that, in the last 30 years, Edinburgh has passed from being among the first great cities, from the architectural point of view, definitely to a second-rate place. What is the reason? One of the most important things that we need to talk about this afternoon is the unfortunate characteristic of the Housing Acts, which permit a grant to be made for tearing down and rebuilding, but not for re-conditioning ancient buildings. I am certain that that was done inadvertently; nobody would want to bring about anything of that kind. The Housing Acts are, to a very large extent indeed, too rigid and wooden. The dons of St. John's College, Cambridge, have the noblest combination room in the University, a magnificent, long gallery, which was erected in 1599. I think I am right in saying that if the Housing Acts applied to it, it would have to be destroyed, because it lacks about three inches of the necessary height. What I want to protest against with all the enthusiasm in my power is the way in which the Housing Acts, in so many cases, are compelling the destruction of ancient buildings that would be very much better reconditioned. It is obviously more convenient for the people to be housed in the solid stone buildings of days gone by than in cheap bungalows. It is not merely that; it is because there is not a grant for restoring buildings which are perfectly good in themselves, and because the various Regulations about the height of rooms and so on are far too wooden.
In other lands, this matter is much better attended to than in our own country. In order to mention a place which will not arouse the susceptibilities of anyone in this House I will talk about Sweden. In the schools in Sweden every-

body is taught about the local architecture, the folk lore and the buildings in the villages and towns, and the result is that all Swedes know about their own country and are proud of their ancient buildings. Whenever a new case comes up in Sweden, it is always possible to preserve an ancient building.
At the present time I am particularly interested in one of the noblest monuments of Edinburgh, Tailors Hall. It represents the middle of the seventeenth century, the first beginning of those skyscraper forms which afterwards became so characteristic of Edinburgh street architecture. I am sure that every antiquary will bear me out when I say that it is the finest example of street architecture of its kind left in Scotland at the present time. Will it be believed by this House that it is actually proposed to take down the front of Tailors Hall to widen Cowgate, although, a few yards away, Cowgate goes through a narrow arch that cannot possibly be widened. I want, as provocatively as I can, to appeal, in the most desperate way, for the preservation of Tailors Hall, and the old monuments of my own Scottish capital.
It chanced a few days ago that I was reading the works of a great Irish poet in the Library of this building, and I came across a rather interesting passage not, I think, very generally known, in Goldsmith's "Deserted Village":
Ill fares the land to hastening ills a prey Which lightly casts its heritage away.
New council houses flourish, but soon fade;
A breath can shake them as a breath has made.
But noble monuments, their country's pride,
When once destroyed can never be supplied.
I commend, with rousing enthusiasm, the voice of Oliver Goldsmith to this House and to the Government.

5.45 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I have great pleasure in associating myself with the hon. Members who proposed and seconded this Motion, and I should also like to congratulate very heartily the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Marshall) on his very practical remarks. He obviously knows all about town planning. I myself was engaged in putting through the first town planning


scheme that ever was put through—the Ruislip-Northwood scheme—and I have taken a great interest in it ever since. I can quite see that the criticisms of the hon. Member are very forcible. I was very much interested by what he said about the improvement of elevations. The other night, at a meeting of a committee, which the hon. Member did not attend—

Mr. Marshall: I was not asked.

Sir J. Withers: —a lecture was given by an eminent architect connected with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, in which he said it was very doubtful whether local authorities had the power to judge as to the suitability of elevations. I should like to know very much whether that is the real truth of the matter, because, if it is, it makes a great deal of difference, since the question of elevations is a very important one. In this matter there are two very great subject-matters of criticism—the Ribbon Development Act and the Town and Country Planning Act. I say further they are objections because they mislead the public. They are not compulsory, and the administration is carried on by people who have not the taste and knowledge and power to do it, and, moreover, they have not the money, which is a very important matter. These are questions which would have to be considered by the Government if the suggested new body were set up to consider what has to be done. Obviously all parties in the House are agreed that something should be done. The Government themselves, I am sorry to say, are not beyond criticism. Look, for instance, at their suggestion to put up an aircraft factory near Maidenhead, which would have brought needlessly a large body of industry, for no earthly reason, right into the middle of a lovely piece of country near London, and would have done tremendous damage to the countryside. Another matter has been brought before me only to-day in this letter from the secretary of the Hertfordshire society:
At the present moment there is a Bill before the House, the London Passenger Transport Bill, 1937, which I believe came up for Second Reading yesterday."—
I do not think it did—
This Bill aims at the establishment of a tube station and railway extension to the neighbourhood of Aldenham Reservoir, and will, if passed, ruin for all time the amenities

of a beautiful countryside and destroy the existing amenities of the Watford by-pass trunk road.
Surely, the Ministry of Transport can see to it that, while the utilitarian requirements are provided for, the artistic amenities are preserved at the same time. I think, also, that the Forestry Commissioners have to be watched extremely carefully. I have noticed with great doubts their activities in the Lake District. Of course, one naturally supports them theoretically in their work, but the idea of planting trees in great batches on low-lying ground, wherever it happens to be, is not really proper. They may spoil a view, and it has to be done with the greatest care. One or two cases have been brought to my notice where afforestation has done considerable harm from the point of view of the amenities of the district.
The Government should most certainly agree to this Motion, and to the formation of some body which would ascertain what requires to be done and supervise the local authorities. Personally, I think that such a body ought to be of a statutory and permanent character, under the control of Parliament, so that the whole matter can be looked into properly. One question which ought to be considered is the question, which I understand is fully dealt with in France, of the abatement of Death Duties where land or property or houses are given to the nation, or where facilities are given for the public to have access to and visit the property. I think the Government should consider, in return for such facilities, some remission of Death Duties. In addition, I would suggest that education authorities should take in hand the inculcation of taste and historical knowledge, as outlined by the hon. Member who spoke just now. After all, it is public opinion that ultimately matters, and that will ultimately decide this matter. I heartily support the suggestion that we should follow Sweden and have these various matters pointed out in our primary elementary schools. I support the Resolution with all my heart.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: For a very long time people have complained about the country being spoilt by the town, and about the urbanisation of the country. As far back as 1770, Dr. Johnson, speaking of his own time, said that:
He observed that the influence of London now extended everywhere, and that, from all


manner of communication being opened, there shortly would be no remains of the ancient simplicity or places of cheap retreat to be found.
A hundred years later, Sir Walter Scott made the same complaint, that Scotland was being urbanised and brought under the influence of the towns. Speaking of his own city, he said:
Betwixt building and burning, every ancient monument of the Scottish capital is now likely to be utterly demolished.
It is our duty, while recognising that there must be change, that things can grow up which we do not like, and that changes may take place which we lament, to prevent as far as we can the destruction of what is beautiful and ancient. It has been said that we get from the past a burden to be removed and a heritage to be preserved. We have to preserve the heritage of the beauty and charm of our country. The "Times" has again and again, in striking articles, called attention to what is now going on, and one such passage is so apt and suitable, and expresses so well the happenings of the present time, that I will ask the House to allow me to read it. The "Times" said:
The English scene is being changed very rapidly, and being changed for the worse. Scarcely a week passes but our attention is urgently called to a new road that is to ruin an old village, a valley, a stretch of woodland; to an electric cable that is to be swung on huge steel towers across a country sacred from its beauty and its associations; to the ill-considered, ill-designed, ill-placed building of anything from a factory or a housing estate to a shoddy shack; to advertisements that are like electric motor horns screeching through a Mozart quartette; to old houses pulled down and fine trees cut down; to ravage and defilement by trippers; to offences of many kinds against the form, the colour, the peace, the health, the decency, the dignity, the spirit of the English country.
That is the spirit of the "Times," a newspaper which cannot be charged with lack of broadness of mind or lack of fairness of view. What are the amenities that we want to preserve? I think that perhaps the best list is given in a Bill that was introduced into this House in 1930 by Sir Hilton Young, as he then was. In that Bill there were set forth the various amenities which it was desirable should be preserved. They included the protection and acquisition of ancient monuments, and the prevention of the exportation of ancient houses. In this connection I should like to read another paragraph which appeared in the

"Times" a little while ago. It was as follows:

COTSWOLD COTTAGE FOR AMERICA.

Another piece of fourteenth century England, a cottage, has been shipped to America. Recently the Great Western Railway ran a special train of 67 wagons conveying, in carefully packed boxes and bags weighing 475 tons, what had been a Cotswold cottage in the village of Chedworth, famous as the site of a Roman villa. The dwelling was originally two cottages of true Cotswold type, converted in recent years into one. After purchase by its present owner, it was restored to its original form, even to the reconstruction of a protruding oven. Afterwards it was taken down stone by stone and packed for the journey."

It is no secret that the person who bought the cottage and had it taken to pieces and transported to America was young Mr. Ford, who had been making a tour round the country. We have also to fight against the hideous advertisements, and, above all, the petrol stations, which now are everywhere. Trees also should be preserved. In some countries the preservation of trees receives particular attention. In the Grand Duchy of Hesse, the Finance Minister issued some little time ago an illustrated book entitled "Noteworthy Trees in the Grand Duchy of Hesse." One quality in Lord Beaconsfield that I always admired was his love for his trees. When he died, he left a clause in his will that none of his trees were to be cut down. We want to preserve ancient bridges. One of the great charms of many countrysides is the old high bridges. They were built in the days when pack-men used to carry on the trade of the country. The pack-man had a pack horse and a dog. The dog was called a Talbot. When he went round to call on his customers he had to leave his horse, and the dog was there to prevent his goods being interfered with. You will still see old inns with the sign, "Pack Horse and Talbot." There is one now, I believe, between Hammersmith and Kew.

The prevention of refuse dumps was another provision made in the Bill of Sir Hilton Young. The preservation of village greens and the security of open spaces were also objects set forth in the Bill. There were other matters that called for attention. Even such details as wild flowers ought to be protected. In Cape Colony the wild flowers are scheduled and anyone who plucks them without a licence commits a criminal offence. Even in England attempts have


been made to preserve them. The county of Leicester in 1914 obtained power to protect wild flowers, and other counties have similar provisions, but unfortunately they are not exercised. Another thing to be fought against is litter. The worst offenders in regard to litter are the townspeople, and the most offensive of all are the people with the most expensive motor cars. The adults are worse than the children. The worst offender is the adult in an expensive motor car.

Having stated the various objects that we have to fight for, the question arises, How is it to be done? I should very much like to see a Minister of Amenities. I asked the Prime Minister a question about it the other day and, while he sympathised with my object, he felt that it was not practicable, but I think it is an idea that should be popularised. The first to suggest it was Sir Maurice Abbot Anderson, an important authority with regard to the preservation of beauty. Another distinguished man of the same kind was Dr. Vaughan Cornish, who in his new book, "The Preservation of our Scenery," demands a Board of Scenery to keep its eye not on local authorities only but also on the Government Departments, on the Forestry Commission, on the Commissioners of Crown Lands and on others which are in special need of co-ordination in matters relating to scenic amenity. Those proposals, made by those two distinguished men, are both things which should ultimately be carried into effect and which it is worth while to popularise. I note what is done in Italy, in France, and in some of our colonies, New Zealand, for example, which has a population little more than Manchestèr and which has yet set apart great stretches of land as national parks and places of recreation in the future. What New Zealand is doing I think the mother country might also do. I feel that anything we can do for the preservation of our beloved country is well worth doing and will bring supreme satisfaction to the person who does it.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I think that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion. I have seldom known a case where the House was more united in agreeing that the Government ought to do all they can to preserve our ancient and interesting historical buildings. The hon. Member

for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) referred to my constituency as the second best place next to Bilsion. I have not visited Bilston so I cannot return the compliment, but I thank him for what he said. Those who have been to Edinburgh will realise the advantage of retaining the character of those old streets. The difficulty is that the old houses, which are built with thick walls and with no damp courses, are very difficult to alter. It is true that the Housing Acts do not allow of the same advantage being made as when new houses are being built.
I consider that that is all wrong, but I still think that, where you have a historic street like the Canongate, local authorities have a duty to do something to retain the character of those old houses. The character of a city is made up partly by its site, but also by the houses and buildings in it. In the case of the Canongate, both the Government and the local authority ought to do something to retain the characteristics of the street. I do not mean to say that the houses should be turned into museums. I want to see them retained as dwelling places, not in their present condition, but something might be done to retain the outside facades and still, by necessary alterations, to make use of them as houses. We have John Knox's house and others which are used as museums. We do not want any more museums. It is there where I feel that the Government might do something to help, and I should like my hon. Friend to mention this to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is not only of local but of national interest and I think the Government, in conjunction with the local authorities, ought to see whether something might not be done to preserve these interesting houses as a relic from the past. If they did, it would meet with the greatest gratitude from the people of Scotland.
The National Trust in Scotland has done splendid work, the same sort of work as has been done by the National Trust in England. It has only comparatively recently been formed, but it has done well. I doubt, however, whether it can do all that is required. I feel sure that the Government will bear in mind the necessity, so far as they can, of coming to the rescue in those cases where there is something worth while to preserve. In every way in which it is possible to retain the historical interest in places like


Edinburgh, every step should be taken, and I feel certain that this has the sympathy of the Minister.

6.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) referred to factories. There is no reason at all why factories should not possess a beauty of their own. Battersea power station illustrates that fact. I should like to join in the chorus of congratulation which has been addressed to the Mover of the Motion. I think that both in bringing it forward and in the very active way in which he urges the introduction of a Time and Progress schedule in building operations, he performs services of very great value indeed. I felt some curiosity yesterday as to which Minister would be in charge of this Debate. It is a great satisfaction to find such a very well-known aesthete is in charge although earlier in the Debate I noticed a Treasury watchdog was at his side to remind him that he must not let his emotions be influenced by the eloquence of hon. Members in this Debate. I feel that in some ways it is rather a melancholy discussion, because those who are in sympathy with the Motion must feel that in many respects they are fighting a lost battle. We must ask ourselves what prospect there is of the Government doing anything practical in the matter. I have no doubt they may agree to setting up an inquiry, but that is the most convenient way open to a Government of shelving some awkward matter. If, instead of setting up an inquiry, they were to show some practical sympathy with our endeavours, for instance by making a grant to the funds of the National Trust, that would be more practical and more satisfactory. I imagine that the Office of Works is in receipt of considerable revenues from the admission fees charged to various buildings of national interest, and perhaps out of their revenues they might feel able to make a grant towards the National Trust.
I should like to mention one or two matters in regard to the countryside out of my own experience. I have known the Lake District from my childhood and have walked and climbed over every mile of the fells of Westmorland and Cumberland. It is a district of extraordinary charm because of the

miniature scale of the scenery and the exquisite proportions of everything which meets the eye. I can hardly bear to go back to the Lake District now because the commercialisation of its natural beauties is being exploited. Vandalism after vandalism has been committed. I had to drive past Thirlmere the other day. It was a famous beauty spot but now one can hardly bear to look at it, the surroundings have become so completely artificial. The paths and gateways which give access to the Fells are now of the most approved recreation ground pattern. Afforesters are hard at work destroying the wilds of Ennerdale. They even cast envious eyes on the loveliest tract of all in the lakes, the head of Eskdale where it would be impossible to move a single stone without affecting the genius of the place. Near Eskdale there is Hard Knott, site of an old Roman encampment. If ever there was a place to go when one feels overcome by that longing for quietude and solitude that comes over all of us at some time, it was there. Last year I read with consternation that motor bicycle trials were to be run there. I asked questions in this House and elsewhere and while everyone agreed in deploring what was proposed, I was told that no authority existed that could prohibit those trials from taking place. Why should such trials be allowed to invade Hard Knott and Eskdale and ruin them for those who have found them a refuge from everything that the hooligan on a motor bicycle represents?
It is this lack of authority which seems to be the crux of the matter. For some time I sat on the rural district council at Crowborough. We appointed a town-planning expert and in due course he came along and asked us to appoint an assistant to him, which we did. He used to come into our meetings with very fine plans and charts and the air became quite thick with talk about something called "zoning" and while this went on Crow-borough just continued to grow uglier and uglier. Practically at every meeting we had some case brought to our notice of an infringement of the building bylaw. When that ťook place we used to write to the gentleman concerned and tell him that he had done something which he ought not to have done. He used to reply that he was very sorry indeed about it and would certainly not do it again. That made us feel fine and as the


gentleman in question had no intention of doing any more building it did not hurt him in the least. I fled from Crowborough and now live at Wimbledon, where a few die-hards make pathetic efforts to preserve what few amenities are left there, but the council is dominated by the local tradesmen and shopkeepers, and quite naturally they care nothing for amenities. What they want are more customers and so building goes steadily on and the amenities become fewer and fewer.
These are one or two instances. I wonder whether the Minister who is to reply will tell us anything about another matter which has been raised in this House—the case of West Wittering. How does that matter stand at the present moment? There is the question of the commons. The National Parks Committee recommended that a survey should be made of the commons. Legislation is needed in order that that can be done. It ought to be introduced and the duty should be placed upon county councils of completing the survey within a limited period. I hope that the Minister may say something to us on that score.
There is the question of our ancient churches which has been touched upon. What is going to be done to restrain the vandal ecclesiastics and the Privy Council, in the matter of All Hallows which, one hears, is to be pulled down? What has happened during recent years in this connection? I remember that an attempt was made to demolish certain churches in the City of London and that attempt was frustrated by this House. How is it that in this instance All Hallows has been sold and the Church has apparently gone into the service of Mammon and is not opposed to the destruction of this Wren structure, while the House of Commons has not been consulted at all. It would be interesting to hear something about that matter. I agree with everything that has been said this afternoon about the gratitude which we ought to feel towards the National Trust. I do not want to say anything ungenerous about the Trust except that I do wish when they acquire land they would leave it exactly in the state in which they find it. I often notice that when they acquire land they erect seats and shelters in the style of what I would describe as the best Ideal Home Exhibition and instal litter receptacles of a very refined

character indeed. These things seem rather to get between me and nature. They make me think of those discreet notices which invite us to leave a certain apartment in the condition in which we should expect to find it.
I agree that the National Trust has very great difficulties with which to contend. I was in Oxford last week and paid a visit to that modern Parnassus, Boar's Hill, where the arts and handicrafts and folk dancing and the Seven Muses generally, flourish in a congenial atmosphere of very hairy homespuns and sandals. The view from Boar's Hill over Oxford was literally one of the most beautiful in the world. It was a view of ever-changing loveliness, never twice alike, and particularly in misty weather most wonderful effects were brought out. The National Trust has bought land at Foxcombe on Boar's Hill, which used to belong to Lord Berkeley, in order to preserve this view. It is very praiseworthy of them, but unfortunately they cannot do anything to prevent the view which they spent so much to preserve. from being ruined. What has been done at Oxford is really the quintessence of vandalism and the University buildings have become an anachronism on the face of an eyesore.
Here in London we are watching a city which had individuality being transformed into a city with none at all. The artist is not allowed to function in the transformation which is taking place in London. Instead of that we are simply turning the engineer loose to do his splendid worst. Ribbon development, as has been said to-day, is dangerous. It is anti-social, it is hideous. We go on condemning it and ribbon building goes gaily on. Wherever we look we see the hand of the speculative builder at work. Why this criminal moron, as he all too often is, is allowed to function without the restraining hand of an architect upon him is something which passes comprehension. Why do we allow the face of our countryside to be determined by uneducated and illiterate men without one spark of taste or feeling? I remember going to the clerk of a rural-council about a bungalow which I wished to build, to make inquiries about the procedure. After he had told me about the procedure he picked up a folder from his desk and said, "You might


like to look at some designs which my son has got out," and he added, "They are pretty tasty if you would like to choose one." The son was a totally unqualified man, and in spite of the very plain inference that if I chose one of his "tasty" plans I should find that things would go easier about my plans and my building, I nevertheless refrained, but when I walked about that countryside afterwards I realised that he was doing a roaring trade in his "tasty" plans.
These are just incidents in the retreat from a battle which, I fear, is already lost. The Mover of the Motion and other hon. Members who have spoken to-day, like myself, can only sullenly fire a few shots as we retreat. We are up against Government apathy and we are up against the very strongest emotions in human nature—greed, graft, selfishness, love of money, and I fear we are up against public opinion also. The Government will do nothing because there are no votes in the cause which we are pleading to-day. You can win a General Election on double-crossing. We know that because the Prime Minister has told us so, but you cannot win a General Election on aestheticism. Can this House picture the Minister of Labour and the Assistant Postmaster-General issuing their election address with pictures of themselves as Hercules and Mercury respectively on the outside, and a simple statement inside that they stand for beauty, naked and unadorned? I am afraid that until there are votes in it beauty is fated to go uncherished by politicians, although, self-preservation being the first law of human nature, I should have expected certain Members of this Government to take a lively interest in the Preservation of Ancient Monuments. Again we are up against the fact that there is money in this defilement of the countryside. If you try to oppose it you come straight up against property ownership and the sacred principle that a man should be allowed to do what he likes with his own. Does the Mover of the Motion really imagine that the Conservative Government would not prefer that all beauty vanished from the earth rather than tackle the vested interests of property?

Mr. Bracken: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with whose arguments I

am in entire agreement, explain to the House why it is that co-operative societies are building some of the most hideous places in this country at the present time?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: The hon. Member must not expect that I can explain all the activities of the Co-operative Society, but if that Society does build ugly buildings, then everything that I say this afternoon applies to it in that particular sense. I have already said that there is no reason why factories or warehouses should be ugly. But if there is money to be made it will be made, and if beauty tries to get between the speculator and his prey, then so much the worse for beauty. It is very foolish though, even from the point of view of trade and industry, because in spite of all the abominations of English hotel cookery and plank beds, such as Procrustes never dreamt of, there is a tourist traffic in this country. There is only one thing that we have to show the tourist from abroad which he cannot see better somewhere else, and that is our countryside, which has a loveliness which all travellers agree is unique and cannot be seen anywhere else. When we finally destroy it, what are we going to show the traveller to this country? Are we going to take him to see Peacehaven or South-end-on-Sea, or what?
I said that to a very large extent I feared we are up against public opinion in this matter. At any rate, I am sure that we have not got public opinion behind us to the extent that we should like to have it. Public opinion seems not to want beauty. On the contrary, it seems to want passionately about a dozen things which are totally incompatible with beauty. We know that a waterfall or a river or a bridge is very often the objective of a char-a-banc trip, but that is because a char-a-banc trip must have a point at which it turns round and comes back. All too frequently a beauty spot is selected for this turning point just as a Hollywood director frequently chooses a play by Shakespeare as the vehicle for exhibiting his latest platinum blonde. It is unfortunate that a beauty spot is selected because, unnerved by the unusual contact with beauty, the tripper has to be restored, and so if not a public house you must at least erect "Aunt Priscilla's Parlour," or "Anne's Pantry," or "The Buttery Hatch," where Lyons tea and


cakes may be served just as if it were London. If the beauty spot is in Yorkshire, this tea is called a Devonshire Tea; if it happens to be in Devonshire then you call it a Yorkshire Tea. Then there has to be "Ye Olde Tudor Filling Station." There has to be a shack with a tin roof, where cigarettes can be bought, and another shack with a tin roof, where incredibly vulgar picture postcards can be bought. If the trip is to the sea, then what is wanted is a pier, a very long pier. If the pier leads out over an expanse of mud, and the sea is comfortably out of sight, so much the better.
Mountains, I am afraid, to the majority of the race still arouse those emotions of horror and gloom which they aroused in Dr. Johnson, which can only be mitigated if you run a railway up them, as in the case of Snowdon. Then they become bearable, and if you can throw bottles over the precipices, with a good chance of hitting on the head one of those lunatics who prefers to walk up the mountain instead of riding up it on the railway, then supreme felicity is achieved. It is no use pretending that beauty is in popular demand, because it just is not, or if it is, then there is a new conception of beauty which the Mover of this Motion and myself have not yet realised. He and I probably think that the stone of the Cotswolds and the slates of Wales and Borrodale are very fine building materials. We may be wrong, and perhaps breeze and bright red asbestos tiles have a beauty of their own, which we have failed to perceive. Vox popuu, vox Dei. The verdict seems to have gone against us.
Perhaps I might make two practical suggestions. I am not enamoured of the idea of an inquiry. It may do some good, but only too often an inquiry is a means of shelving a problem. I attach more importance to the education of the children in the schools in a sense of beauty, and I should like to mention a most enlightened leading article which appeared in the "Times" stressing that very point. I should also like to urge upon the Government the possibility of making a grant to the funds of the National Trust. I have said that this is rather a gloomy subject. I can hold out only one ray of hope. The Mover wants immediate steps to be taken for the preservation of beauty and charm. If my reading is correct, then all through

the ages the female face and form have been considered the supreme expression of beauty on this earth. If that is so, then there never was an age in which more was being done to meet the Mover's wishes. The sale of cosmetics, of lipstick, of soaps, of creams and of face lotions, has reached an unprecedented volume. In restaurants, in trains, in omnibuses, in every public place women may be seen hard at work on the preservation of places of charm and, may I say, the greater the ruin the more active are the steps taken for its preservation. On other fronts the battle may be lost, but on this front not only is victory with us, but we continue to make more progress.

6.35 p.m.

Sir Douglas Thomson: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken began his speech by joining in the chorus of congratulation to the Mover of the Motion, but obviously, as he said, the battle is already lost. I was struck by what was said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) in regard to a building in Wolverhampton which was pulled down about 20 years ago. I do not know whether all the buildings of beauty in Wolverhampton have been demolished since then, or whether the last building of beauty was pulled down 20 years ago. But in Scotland the position is quite otherwise, and I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) and the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill). In Scotland we are much worse off than in England. There are far fewer old houses in Scotland existing to-day than in England.

Mr. Hannah: Unfortunately.

Sir D. Thomson: Very unfortunately, and what we have are being pulled down very rapidly. In Aberdeen there is a danger of our losing an old and historic building, Provost Skene's house. It has not yet been pulled down, but plans have been out for its demolition. We still hope that it may be saved. The hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh spoke of the Canongate. We can divide these old buildings into three classes—the class that comes under the definition of ancient monuments, blocks of houses, and single houses that are lived in. The Canongate


buildings come in the second class. They have to be used as dwelling-houses. Most of them are scheduled for demolition. The hon. Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield (Mr. Marshall) spoke of a cathedral, of which someone had said he felt as if it grew. Go to the Canongate and see the houses recently put up there, and I do not think that anyone would come to the conclusion that they were growing. They may appear sane on the plans, but when you see the finished article it is as unlike the original as can possibly be imagined.

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: No.

Sir D. Thomson: I am very ignorant in these matters, but I do not think that tourists would come from America in large numbers to see buildings such as those.

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: Yes.

Sir D. Thomson: What! Perfectly modern buildings, put up in 1936?

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: The hon. Baronet is speaking of the Canongate.

Sir D. Thomson: In any case, I should like to come down to a very low level, which may appeal—perhaps that is the wrong way to put it—to the Minister who will reply. The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down said that there was money in the pulling down of old houses. From the nation's point of view, surely there is money in keeping them up. I do not quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh on this point. I do not think it would cost much more to modernise these old houses, to take out the back and the inside and keep the front. Usually you have a family on each floor, and it would perhaps not be more than £100 for the house. A small amount of money would go a long way to reconditioning these houses, and if that money were regarded as a capital asset to attract tourists, I should have thought that even on the lowest level of finance, apart from the question of art, it would be worth the country's while to see that these old buildings were retained.

6.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As the hon. Member who moved the Motion said, we have discussed several times this Session the preservation of the

beauty of this country. I had occasion during the previous discussions to indicate the steps that had already been taken, and I do not think that the House would wish me to go over the whole ground again, but I must say, in fairness, that a good number of the speeches that have been made this afternoon would appear to indicate that the hon. Members who made them had not paid much attention to my earlier efforts to explain what is really being done.
I noticed in particular the speech of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion and the speech of another hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser). Both of them agree that the country cannot stand still and that we must have development. One of the societies interested in the preservation of beauty goes so far as to say, whenever it is proposed to pull down a house or a cottage, if it is less than 100 years old, that it has many years of life still in it, but if it is more than 100 years old, they say it ought to be preserved, because it is an historic monument. Clearly, it is impossible to maintain that point of view. The real question that we have to decide is not whether any old buildings should or should not be pulled down but whether old buildings are unnecessarily being pulled down. Some hon. Members have asked whether I can draw a distinction between the Ancient Monuments Act, which only applies to buildings which are not inhabited, and later Acts, and whether I can say that there are means of preventing the demolition of buildings that are inhabited. The answer is yes, because there is specific sanction in Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, which allows the local authority to serve a notice on the owner of a specific building, saying that in their opinion that building is historically or architecturally good, and he is not allowed to pull it down. That, really, is the answer to the various complaints that have been made in the course of the Debate.
Hon. Members seem to forget that the present legislation is only four years old. This House, in its wisdom, decided to confer powers on local authorities, and although I am not going to say that this House is always right, I do think that in the great majority of cases the collective wisdom of this House is probably


more often correct than any individual Member. It is impossible to come along now, when the Act has not really had time to get into operation, and say that we must wipe away the whole of the powers given to the local authorities and put them in the hands of the Central Government. You cannot lay down one general line of action, because the beauty of this country is much too varied for that. The real solution lies not in coming to Whitehall and saying that the Central Government must act, and tell the local authorities to disallow this, that or the other, or to do this that or the other, but, as some hon. Members have suggested, in educating public opinion, and especially local authorities, into a realisation of beauty and the responsibilities that are involved in the preservation of beauty.

Mr. Bracken: Is it not very difficult to educate local authorities in preserving the beauties of architecture when the Government themselves have a scheme to pull down the only surviving fine stone Georgian house in Westminster. I refer to the houses in Old Palace Yard. Is not that a very bad example?

Mr. Hudson: That may or may not be true, but if the hon. Member believes it to be a bad example it is certainly not an argument for leaving everything in the hands of the Central Government. We are being asked to take powers away from the local authorities and to put them into the hands of the Central Government, but in the opinion of the hon. Member the Central Government are no better than the local authorities. Some hon. Members have suggested, and I think the Mover of the Motion suggested, that they knew hundreds and thousands of cases where old buildings are being pulled down unnecessarily and where the beauty of the countryside is being spoiled owing to the action of the local authorities.
On the last occasion the House discussed this question I said that the Government were extremely interested in the preservation of the beauties of the country, and that I as one of the responsible Ministers would be delighted to have any cases of spoliation put before me. I suggested that a deputation of the various parties interested should come to me and produce such cases as they knew of, so that we could go into them and see what steps, if any, were necessary to meet the situation. I understand that arrange-

ments are being made for this deputation and that they are trying to collect cases. I hope they will come and that our conference will be of great use both to them and to me. But it is somewhat indicative of the situation that they should take all this time to produce a case.

Mr. Bracken: I have given you a case.

Mr. Hudson: If it is true that every single society knows of hundreds of these cases, I suggest that it would not take them so long to come and see me. A suggestion has been made for a survey of the buildings which are still inhabited and which might be scheduled. The Surrey County Council have taken a lead in this matter, and have actually drawn up a schedule of buildings in Surrey which, in their opinion, are worthy of preservation. That is a precedent which the Department is very pleased to see, and we are proposing to call the attention of other local authorities to their powers and suggest to them that they should follow a similar course. Some hon. Members have suggested that the Government should give a lead. Anyone who has studied at first hand the work of the Ancient Monuments Department of the Office of Works must agree that, considering the small sums at their disposal, their achievements have been remarkable. At the present moment in practically every county in England there are ancient monuments and buildings scheduled and being preserved by the Office of Works, representing buildings in all stages of our history, from prehistoric days down to the present.
One hon. Member asked whether the Office of Works were able under the Ancient Monuments Acts to preserve anything after 1714. They can do so, and in fact have done so. Other hon. Members asked whether local authorities have any powers to supervise the e1evation and alteration of historic buildings. The answer to both questions is "Yes" Only yesterday in a Committee room upstairs one of the speakers mentioned a particular rural district council, and accused it of erecting ugly cottages; he said that they were being designed not by a qualified architect but by the local building inspector. He, like some hon. Members, seemed to argue that every architect is capable of producing a beautiful building. The Minister has in fact sent round a circular to all local


authorities pointing out that in his opinion it was most desirable that local authorities should employ only persons of experience who were capable of producing dwellings of architectural merit, and asking that if in any of the buildings they proposed to erect they did not employ a qualified architect they should, at an early stage, submit the plans to the Department in order that we may have an opportunity of seeing that they satisfy the canons of good taste. The rural district council in question was Cheltenham, and I understand that they have not yet put up these cottages. I have no doubt that they will submit plans to us. After all, if the architects of Gloucestershire are anxious that the scenery of Gloucestershire should not be spoilt, they have set up a panel, and it is open to them to say to the local authority: "Although you have not actually employed one of us to do your work, may we suggest that before you finally approve the plans you should have regard to such and such?"
I think we have gone as far as the Ministry can go in urging the need for qualified persons to do this work, and in supervising any work not done by a qualified architect. As showing the extent to which some local authorities have taken this matter in hand may I refer to York and Winchester as examples? They have superintended most carefully extensions and alterations of ancient buildings within their boundaries, and anyone who has been to these two cities and seen the work will agree that they have been most successful in their efforts. They are examples which it is worth following. I turn to the National Trust. A good deal has been said about it, and I think that every hon. Member is broadly familiar with its work. The Trust, I understand, is going to submit shortly to this House a Bill to enable it to receive from landowners property, both houses and land, on terms which will allow the trust to own it and prevent its spoliation, and at the same time allow the owners and their heirs to continue to enjoy living there—very much on the same lines as I believe Sir Charles Trevelyan did. I cannot at present express any opinion about the actual details of the Bill before it is submitted to the House, but I can tell hon. Members that as far as we have seen it at present both the Ministry of Health and the Office of Works in general wel-

come the Bill, and the Treasury are in general sympathy with it. I hope it will go a long way towards meeting the demand which in France, for example, has been met by the organisation and methods of La Demeure Historique.
It has been suggested that, in spite of all the Acts which are on the Statute Book, further powers are still required. The Bath Corporation have actually presented a private Bill asking for further powers, and specifically asking for powers to prevent any alterations being made to houses at Bath without their permission if they were built before 1820. Again, I cannot say beforehand what our attitude will be on the details of the Bill, but it will be interesting to see what view the House takes, and whether hon. Members who think that fuller powers are necessary will be prepared to give these powers to a local authority. My final suggestion is this. There are scattered up and down the country large numbers of voluntary societies interested in various aspects of the preservation of the amenities of the country, some in our ancient buildings, some in the construction of roads, and some in the preservation of beautiful scenery.
The real answer, I think, to this Debate is to suggest that it is the duty of these voluntary societies to educate public opinion in their own neighbourhoods. I cannot possibly agree, and I do not think many hon. Members will agree, with the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) in his sweeping denunciation of democratic government, a denunciation which we naturally expect coming from an hon. and gallant Member with Socialist opinions. He and I will never agree. Our view is that there is infinite scope for these voluntary societies, and that it is up to them by agitation in their own localities, to see that the very extensive powers which have been provided by law for local authorities shall be put into operation. If as a result of all these efforts it is subsequently discovered that further powers are required, then will be the time to come to this House and ask for them. Meantime I am authorised to say that we accept the Motion, and will continue in the Department to carry out the type of inquiry referred to in the Motion. I hope myself that the deputation from voluntary societies which, as I have said, is coming


to see me, will be most helpful in this direction.

6.56 p.m.

Captain Alan Graham: In expressing the satisfaction which, I am confident, hon. Members will feel in the Motion being accepted by the Minister, there is one point I wish to urge strongly, and that is that any inquiry, any schedule, and especially any further legislation which may be passed in connection with this matter, should be extended to the Crown Colonies. Many of these, particularly in the Mediterranean, are absolute treasure houses of beauty and antiquities, and if we do not realise our duty to safeguard these we shall not merely be falling far short of our Imperial duty, but we shall not be proving to the inhabitants of these islands that our civilisation is of necessity so much superior to theirs. We are peculiarly fortunate at the present moment in having a Colonial Secretary of sufficient distinction of mind and breadth of patriotism to take a most thorough interest in the antiquities not merely of this country, as he showed when he was head of the Office of Works, but also in those of the Colonies. It may not always be so. We may have a Secretary of State for the Colonies who may be only interested in politics. It also happens that while a proportion of the Governors of these colonies and dependencies are interested, either because they are genuinely concerned with antiquities, or because they realise the advantages to the islands and the dependencies they govern, from the tourist point of view, of these antiquities and other beauty spots being preserved, others unfortunately are not. There, again, we are at present entirely dependent on the character of the individual Governor.
Furthermore, in what I would call the aesthetic awareness or the patriotic self-sacrifice shown in maintaining these antiquities and beauty spots, we are dependent in these Colonies upon private individuals. Contrast what has been done in the island of Cyprus with what the French have done in Syria in the comparatively short time they have ruled it. During that time they have placed the ancient and magnificent castles of Krak des Chevaliers and others in Syria under their own French Ministry of the Beaux Arts. Or contrast it with Italy, a recent corner in the colonial field, in connection with what

she has done with the magnificent antiquities of Rhodes. Compare it with the little that has been done in the 50 years of British rule over Cyprus until comparatively recent times. No Englishman conscious of what the duties of civilisation are in this respect could do anything but blush. In Cyprus especially does one think of Famagusta, with its sixteenth century Venetian in walls, the highest example of military engineering of the time, surrounding a fourteenth century French Gothic cathedral, comparable in style with Rheims and Chartres, and other Crusaders' churches, together with Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Moslem monuments all around. Until some individuals a few years ago became conscious of what our duties there are, and endeavoured to rouse the attention of the British public to them, relatively speaking nothing was done. It is not right that it should be left to the chance of certain private individuals becoming aware, either for aesthetic reasons or reasons of Imperial politics, of their duty in this regard. It is a national duty and should not be left to individuals. No longer have we in these days a number of men of vast wealth who could be relied on to devote large portions of that wealth to objects of aesthetic value, as was the case in the eighteenth century and the first part of the nineteenth century. There are fewer rich men to-day with money available for public purposes-it is taken from them-and consequently there is the greater need for the State to provide for what is not an individual but a national duty. For that reason I strongly urge the Government to see that not only are further steps taken to make effective existing legislation in our own island, but to extend it to the Crown Colonies and Dependencies.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: A great deal has been said about the amount of destruction of ancient monuments that has taken place, and particular reference has been made to London. In my own constituency we have a good example. We are one of the comparatively few areas near London where there still exists a great deal of unspoilt beauty, largely because Chiswick is bounded by the River Thames. But even here the river has provided no protection. The Ministry of Transport constructed a bridge across the river. The bridge was in itself a


beautiful thing, but when the Ministry found that nobody was using the bridge they hit on the plan of extending the Great West Road through some of the best parts of Chiswick. They had as their allies the Tory Middlesex County Council, and the Socialist London County Council, and in spite of the opposition of the local authority and some private members of this House, the Bill was swept through some months ago.
Sometimes the work of the Office of Works is not too well directed. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) talked a great deal about the need for further powers, and rather emphasised the fact that the present statutory powers were limited. So far as buildings which are occupied are concerned that is true, but in regard to buildings not occupied wide powers are held by the Office of Works and the Ancient Monuments Commission. An example came to my notice a short time ago. The owner of a certain church in the North was suddenly served with a notice that it had been scheduled as an ancient building. It had been extensively repaired at considerable cost a year or two before by a private owner. It was admitted by the Department that the church was in excellent condition, and no reason was given that it was of any particular historic interest. It is rather a pity to waste the efforts of the Department in scheduling buildings which are not of any particular value. It has the effect of making it more difficult for private owners to take an interest in those buildings, because as soon as a building is scheduled it becomes illegal for the owner of the building even to do repairs until he has obtained permission from the Office of Works. Before a building is scheduled the Office of Works and the Ancient Monuments Commission should discuss with the owner the desirability of scheduling the building.
I am referring particularly to those lesser buildings which must depend largely for their preservation on private ownership. It is impossible for the country, particularly now, to vote enormous sums of money for the restoration of ancient buildings. We can only do so in regard to those of great historic interest. In the case of other buildings everything should be done to try to co-operate with the owners, and where those owners are

in a position to do preservation and repair work, to try to get them to carry it out. I hope the Minister will bring this to the notice of the Office of Works, to see if he cannot get a little more co-operation between them and the present owners of some of these ancient buildings. The Debate has shown that the House feels strongly the need for doing all that we can to preserve our ever-diminishing works of art.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Radford: I am not going any further afield than the building in which we now are. In age and beauty combined, there are no buildings better than the Palace of Westminster. The outside is beautiful and the inside is beautiful, with one exception. That is St. Stephen's Hall which, for some extraordinary reason, was permitted about 10 or 12 years ago to be defaced with eight or 10 pictures utterly unworthy of this great building. It is my privilege to take numbers of people round, in many cases strangers to me, and to show them and to dwell for a long time on the pictures in the corridors between here and the House of Lords. But I always make it a condition that they shall not look at the pictures in St. Stephen's Hall. It may be that I am lacking in a capacity for judging what is now called art, but I can see no beauty and no art in these pictures. Nor have I ever yet met anybody who has expressed admiration of them. It is a thousand pities that the Office of Works permitted them to be put on the walls. This Debate has shown that the House is sympathetic towards the preservation of our old buildings and things of beauty in the country, and yet at the entrance to this building, through which every stranger must pass, the walls are defaced with pictures utterly unworthy of their surroundings.

7.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: We must all be grateful to the hon. Member for Maid-stone (Mr. Bossom) for resisting the temptation to introduce a Motion of local of sectional interests, and bringing forward, instead, a matter which affects the well-being and happiness not only of this but of succeeding generations. We must also be grateful to many hon. Members for their sympathetic and informed contributions. I would also like to thank the Minister, with a certain amount of restraint, for accepting the Motion on be-


half of the Government. I would like to feel, however, that there will be some greater co-operation effected by the Government than has been the case hitherto. It is a co-ordinating committee of existing departments which is needed, to ensure that all effort is devised towards one end instead of being dissipated among official and non-official bodies all over the country. I would like to feel that the Prime Minister was going to take a personal interest in the inquiry that has been promised, and would keep in touch with the discussions and conclusions. There is no man who has a more active understanding and sympathy with the needs of the plain people of this country, and also the beauties of the countryside. If the Prime Minister were to assert his great authority, not only to see that an inquiry takes place but to see that there is a co-ordinating authority and that real efforts follow it, I should feel far more happy than I do at the moment concerning the remarks of the Minister.
There are one or two points which have occurred to me and which have not been put by hon. Members who have spoken. The first concerns not the preservation of old buildings, but the destruction of some of the old buildings which are at present strewing the countryside and which fill one with feelings of regret and sadness that things that were once so beautiful should have been allowed to become unpleasant skeletons. I believe the time has come for many of these old wrecks to be removed, for they are no longer things of beauty, and for us to concentrate on preserving things of beauty which still exist and which it is still possible to conserve.
Reference has been made to the various defacements that have already taken place in London. We have seen Carlton House Terrace largely removed from that once gracious and dignified facade which it presented. We have also seen St. James's Square—I do not say it was a very beautiful square in itself but it did preserve a certain atmosphere—destroyedby the erection of a building totally out of proportion with the others in the Square. Now we read in the newspapers—and I hope the Minister will contradict this—that there is an idea of pulling down some of the charming Nash terraces in Regent's Park, for instance, Cumber-land Terrace and Gloucester Gate. I cannot believe that one of the last exist-

ing and most perfect examples of Nash's architecture is to be pulled down and replaced by large groups of flats, the architecture of which we know nothing and which are more likely to resemble Borstal institutions than anything else, although I do not see that there is any reason why a Borstal institution should not be something of beauty and grace, if this country is determined to have it. We have the Battersea Power Station and Bush House, which are to my mind examples of what architecture can do with offices and public utility structures. I am only mentioning these things because I wish to make sure that the Committee shall take into consideration the points that have been made and that we snail not come to the House in a few months' time and find a cut-and-dried scheme which possibly does not deal with the situation as we see it.
I would like to refer to an eyesore in Scotland which must strike everyone who visits that lovely country. Dotted about the country are drab, squalid, dreary miners' villages. Nobody could be expected to live and to be happy in such surroundings as one sees right through the industrial centres of Scotland. I suppose they are a relic of the Polish labour invasion, when cheap labour had to be brought over to work in the mines at any cost and nobody took any interest in seeing that these human beings were properly housed. The result has been that it has grown up as a tradition that miners' cottages must be ugly, and it is now possible to bring that tradition to an end. We have to-day, owing to an Act which was passed by this House some time ago, the Architects' Registration Act. There is a new school of architects who are keen, enthusiastic and only too eager to be given an opportunity of testing their skill, judgment and aesthetic knowledge on the working-class houses that are now being erected in such numbers all over the country. Let us give the architects a chance and let us not leave these houses a prey to the borough surveyor and the sanitary engineer, and untutored local authority officials who have little or no knowledge of the subject. Let us use the men who have been trained all their lives for the job so as to make certain that the knowledge, experience, enthusiasm and artistry that is available in the country will be placed


at the disposal of the poor as well as the rich.
Only a few months ago, our late friend and colleague, Sir Godfrey Collins, was so interested in and moved by the problem of which I am speaking that he sent his architectural advisers all over Europe to find out where there were the most suitable housing schemes, so that the working-class cottages and great blocks of flats that were to be erected should be of a quality and design which would give the best accommodation, combining beauty and utility. I am glad that the present Secretary of State is following that example, and we may hope that the housing drive that is now being made in Scotland will shortly remove this eyesore from our midst.
There is only one other point I wish to mention in order to show what can be done if the spirit is there. In a little burgh in Scotland, Helensburgh, the local authority have planted flowering shrubs in alternate designs along every street and road in the burgh. When spring comes it is a joy to go into the town, and life is made so much more happy and pleasant for the people who live there. All this merely demands a drive from the head, from the Government through the local authorities down to the individual builders, whether they be corporations or private people. I hope the Government will consider this matter as one of great seriousness and gravity, and that they will believe it to be in the national interest to utilise every method they can devise for preserving such beauty as we have and bringing added beauty into the lives of the people. If they succeed in doing that, they will deserve the grateful thanks not only of this House but of many people outside.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Bracken: I wish to ask the Minister a very simple question on a matter to which I have already drawn his attention at Question Time, but on which I have received no answer. I asked the Minister whether the Government intend to proceed with the scheme to pull down numbers 5 and 6, Old Palace Yard, Westminster. The House will not deny that that is one of the few remaining stone Georgian houses in London. I asked the

Minister whether he had taken the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission on this matter, and the answer was in the negative. I wish to draw attention to the extraordinary inconsistency of the Government. They come to the House and give their blessing to a scheme for the preservation of ancient buildings and at the same time the house-breakers are waiting to pull down one of the few fine houses left in Westminster. I know that questions of this sort sometimes cause amusement on the Treasury Bench, but I do not think this is a matter of amusement to hon. Members. If the Government will not set an example, what is the good of calling upon people in the country to assist in the preservation of ancient buildings?
Nobody knows the origin of this extraordinary scheme to pull down numbers 5 and 6 Old Palace Yard. It was conceived, I think, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it has been agreed to behind the back of this House, and when the Government are questioned concerning it they simply take up the attitude of a rather obstinate donkey, and will give no answer. The Minister's speech will be read in the country to-morrow and people will say, "What an excellent person represents that Department in the House of Commons!" I hope people will also read that the Minister who sheds crocodile tears over ancient buildings has up his sleeve a scheme to destroy the only surviving stone Georgian house in Westminster. I think the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government regrets this scheme as much as I do, but his chief, who is unfortunately not in this House, has accepted the scheme to destroy one of the few remaining architectural amenities of Westminster. I would like the hon. Gentleman to explain why this extraordinary scheme has been conceived. It is supposed to be part of a scheme for a memorial to King George V, but it is a very poor memorial to pull down one of the very best houses built in the reign of King George I. I would ask the hon. Gentleman why the Royal Fine Art Commission was not consulted on this matter and why the Government, after showing a benevolent interest in old buildings this afternoon, should more or less acquiesce in the ruin of this fine old building? I hope the hon. Gentleman will explain why this outrage is being perpetrated.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: If the hon. Member had been in his place and had asked the question he had on the Paper, he would have received an answer, but he thought so little of the question that he was not in his place to ask it. As a matter of fact, the Government have no responsibility in this matter. It is not the Government which is pulling down this house, but the Committee which raised the money for the King George V memorial. I think I am correct in saying that I told the hon. Member, in answer to a question, that the Government propose to do their best to try to preserve the facade of this house.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: It is a compliment to and an indication of the sang-froid hon. Members and the people of this country, in the dangerous 'days in which we live, that in the midst of great armament preparations and complications in foreign affairs, we can for a short time, in this great legislative Chamber, turn aside to deal with amenities, beauties and things which concern the more private associations of the individual. It is, of course, necessary that an effort should be made, both by local and national methods, to curb the destructive temperament of modern capitalism or modern enterprise. Action is so rapid to-day that unless we also act rapidly so much loss will have occurred that it will be irrecoverable. I feel that a little information which I have as to what is being done in Northumberland and Newcastle might be of use to some hon. Members. We have in Northumberland and Newcastle a society for the preservation of the ancient buildings, amenities and beauties of Northumberland country, and particularly of the city of Newcastle—

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandys rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, as he thought the House was prepared to come to a decision without that Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House deplores the destruction of beauty in town and country and the danger to houses of historic or architectural interest, declares that these are matters of national concern, and is of opinion that the Government should take active steps to ascertain whether its existing powers are adequate or whether they require substantial reinforcement.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Rotherham Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Sheffield Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Grimsby Corporation (Grimsby and District Water, etc.) Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

TREND OF POPULATION.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Cartland: I beg to move,
That this House is of opinion that the tendency of the population to decline may well constitute a danger to the maintenance of the British Empire and to the economic well-being of the nation, and requests His Majesty's Government to institute an inquiry into and report upon the problem and its social and economic consequences and to make recommendations in regard thereto.
The House will agree that this is not merely a political and social problem but that it has other aspects which make it a medical, a psychological, and economic and a moral question. I feel that I have neither the knowledge nor the eloquence to present it as it should be presented to the House, but I felt constrained to put down this question for discussion because it seems to me to be one of the most important problems of the day. I am not certain whether the House has ever directly discussed this question of population. Certainly within the 37 years of this century it has never been discussed, and it seems to me a melancholy fact that it is possible now to put a Motion in these terms on the Paper. The House is aware that there have recently been a number of estimates provided by experts as to the future of the population in this country. These experts are not I believe people of particularly individualistic views, and they are supported by no less an authority than the Registrar-General himself. 'While it is often said that when experts fall out common sense enters in, and it is quite true that the experts' estimates do differ in many respects as to what is going to happen in future years, yet they are all agreed on this point that the population is bound to fall.
It would be possible from the estimates that have been provided by these experts to draw a picture of what England might be in a hundred years from to-day, with derelict and deserted villages, the fac-


tories silent and the mills not turning, the schools without children, only perhaps the hospitals or the almshouses filled. But that might be an untrue, and it certainly would be an alarmist picture, and I do not desire to be an alarmist in regard to this problem. I do not feel that the House would like to view this question from an alarmist angle, and that is why I venture to suggest in the Motion that we should have an inquiry.
I submit that this is not a problem which will arise only in the future but that it is a problem which has arisen to-day. I know it is often felt that statistics and estimates are unreliable, particularly when one is dealing with estimates where the human element enters so largely as it does in this case, but there are certain incontrovertible facts. The first is that the birth rate has been falling steadily and persistently since 1875. It is true that you have had, at the same time, an increase in population, but that increase in population has been brought about entirely by the very remarkable decrease in the death rate. We are now faced in the immediate future—within three years—with the fact that the number of births for the first time will no longer exceed the number of deaths. That is a generally accepted fact. The second fact is regarding what I may describe as the reproduction rate. Putting it in a sentence, if every child who is born to-day were to live to the age of maturity, the birth rate would still not be sufficiently high to maintain the population at the present level. Following from that we have this very serious situation: that there are not sufficient girl babies being born at the present time to replace the mothers of to-day.
The third fact which everyone accepts is that a serious alteration has taken place in the age of the nation. It is generally agreed that the base of a pyramid should be the broadest part and if one regards the age of the nation as a pyramid, one would expect the youth of the nation to form the bottom of the pyramid or the broadest part, and that has been the case for many years. We have now a situation in this country where that is no longer true and where the youth of the country "the under fifteens" are no longer as many as the age group immediately above. In other words the pyramid is gradually becoming top heavy. I do not

desire to burden the House with figures, but I may give one illustration. While to-day, for every 100 persons who exist, we have 23 who are below the age of 15 and 12 above the age of 60, in 1957, in 38 years time, we shall have only seven persons below the age of 15 and 30 above the age of 60.
In the light of those facts which are not challenged, I think the House would desire to ask two questions. The first is: If this is to be the state of England in 20 years time, what will the effect be on the programme and policy which we are putting into operation to-day? The second is: What will be the effect of the policy and programme which we are putting into operation upon the England of 20 years hence? Is it going to relieve the circumstances or are the circumstances going to be aggravated? We have about 20 years breathing space. We have 20 years in which it is possible, if it is desirable, to reverse this trend of declining population or if that is not desirable, then we have 20 years in which it is possible to take certain steps to mitigate the disadvantages which appear likely to arise. The first, immediate, practical and inevitable step is the appointment of an official inquiry.
It may be asked what will such an inquiry do. I suggest that the first question which this inquiry would set itself to answer would be the simple one which is: Why are people having fewer children to-day than they have had in the past? It is easy for any Member of the House to give a number of reasons why fewer children are being born. The easy answer is the spread of birth-control methods but that still does not give the reason why birth-control methods are being employed. Why do people want fewer children? I suggest that that is the principal question which any inquiry will have to set itself to answer. There is no doubt that the tendency of modern life is towards small families. That is not to say that we must either approve the tendency or that we do not think that the tendency might be altered. The question is, why is the smaller family becoming increasingly popular throughout the country.
It is said that with a large family it is impossible to preserve the standard of living to which people have become accustomed. Too often I think that standard of life has become a standard


of luxury, but I am certainly not proposing that it should be our object to depress the standard of life in any way in order to increase the family. But is it absolutely incompatible with an increase in the family that we should have radios, or small cars or that we should go to football matches and cinemas or that we should have silk stockings or permanent waves? Are they all incompatible with family life? I cannot believe it but no one has ever surveyed the problem from that angle as far as I know. There is also the question of modern transport and the urge it engenders to go out from home into the country. How far has that affected the home life of the people?
Perhaps most serious of all, there is the question of economic security. There is one remarkable fact that while national economic circumstances have altered from time to time, while we have had what are generally called slumps and booms, these have to some extent affected the fluctuations of the birth rate but have never affected the trend of the birth rate. Economic circumstances have, undoubtedly, to some extent carried their effects into the fluctuations from year to year but they have never altered the steady decline which has taken place. It is said that we are becoming socially a more ambitious nation and that it is impossible for the social ambition of the people to find full play if they have large families. Ambition is always supposed to be a spur to the individual, it would be a disaster in my opinion if it were to become a curb on family life. These are subjects for inquiry and one could multiply such subjects for inquiry over and over again. No doubt in this Debate hon. Members will suggest many other questions which could be inquired into. There is the question of the incidence of taxation particularly on what I may call the middle section of the community. There is the question of female labour and so forth.
There is a committee which to some extent has surveyed this problem. In November, 1936, an unofficial committee, the Population Investigation Committee, appointed itself and began to look into the problem. It may be suggested that when we have this committee at work there is no need to ask the Government to institute an inquiry.
I do so, however, for two reasons. It is from the governmental point of view and from the point of view of administration that the problem should be surveyed. Obviously we cannot expect an unofficial committee without the resources of a Government committee to make recommendations on this subject. I think if it were the desire of the Government to co-operate with this voluntary committee, which is doing excellent work, or if they could see their way either to make this committee official or to incorporate its work into some general governmental inquiry, it would increase the value of that work very considerably.
The argument may be put forward that this declining population is to be welcomed. I will only say that that is an opinion, but over and over again we are bound to base our arguments on opinion and not on fact, because there has been no survey of this problem of population. Supposing, however, decline is coming, and that it is to be welcomed, we are bound to make certain readjustments in the general structure of our national life to meet the fewer numbers. I referred just now to the incontrovertible fact of the alteration in the age of the nation. That constitutes an immediate problem and one which we have possibly to face up to in five years' time, and certainly in 10 years' time. That is a problem which cannot be dismissed. The only thing is, that it may become much more acute in the future. I think the whole House will agree that modern industry and particularly modern methods in industry have been built up on the theory of increasing expansion and increasing consumption, and what seems to me to be much more serious is the growing number of females and juveniles employed in modern industry. In the next eights years—and I do not think these figures will be challenged—we shall have 500,000 fewer juveniles available for employment than we have now, and in the last 13 years women workers have increased in numbers by nearly 25 per cent. Therefore, the question obviously must be put, What is going to happen when the stream of juvenile and female labour dries up or becomes, shall we say, a mere trickle?
The Ministry of Labour in 1931 appointed a committee to go into this very


problem with regard to juvenile labour in the future, and they approached certain employers who employed juveniles and females to a large extent and said to them, "What arrangements are you making for the possibility of this labour source drying up?" Some 80 per cent. of the committees reported that the employers had made no arrangements at all, that they had not considered this problem. They felt that they could not bother with it. But this is certainly a very serious problem from the point of view of the Government and of industry, and if the employers are not taking steps to envisage what will happen when this source dies up, it is certainly the duty of the Government to look ahead in order to be able to warn the employers of what may happen.
Then we have at the moment a problem in regard to skilled labour. I understand that one-third of the unemployed to-day are unskilled, mainly concentrated in the middle-age group, and at the same time we have a shortage, in certain industries, of skilled men. That problem will be made more acute in future by the decline in population, and I should like to ask what preparations are being made to face the problem of skilled labour. The Ministry of Labour appointed a committee in 1926 which looked into this question of apprentices trade by trade, and they reported, first of all, that only one-seventh of the juveniles under 21 were being trained for industry, and they too said that there will come a time, principally due to the decline in the birthrate, when there will be a very acute shortage of young workers and skilled workers. This shortage is going to become much more acute in the next immediate years, and I think it is really the duty of the Government, almost before this suggested committee inquires into the subject of population, to see how far it is possible, by extending the apprenticeship system and perhaps by making wages in the apprenticeship trades more in line with those outside, to meet that shortage.
It is often said that the trade unions are a block to the apprenticeship system, but I do not think that is true at all. I do not think that anybody who has looked at the problem has found any reliable evidence of that allegation, and if the Government were to invite the co-

operation of the trade unions in this matter, I think they would receive their wholehearted support. I only mention these examples to the House because they are problems which will not be solved and will not even be mitigated by any decline in the population, but will be very considerably aggravated. It may, of course, be said that I am suggesting direction of labour, industrial recruitment, or something of that sort. Well, I do envisage a time when it may be necessary—I say so quite frankly—to do something like that. I am only suggesting that the juvenile employment committees should have an extension of powers beyond what they have at present in order perhaps that they themselves may be able to take steps to meet this question.
There is bound to be a change-over in the form of production. At the moment a great number of trades in the country exist for supplying the various commodities which are demanded by the younger section of the community. I imagine that the things which are bought by the older portion of the community will increase, but that will aggregate the need for mobility of labour, and one of the things from which we are suffering to-day is the immobility of labour. Wherever we look, in any of these industrial problems, there is a need, in my opinion, for an inquiry, and also for the Government to be prepared to take steps to meet these problems.
I must say one word with regard to the effect of the decline in population on the social services. The House will probably have read the report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the year 1935, which is the last one published, and they will have noted—it springs to the eye—the very remarkable statement made by the Chief Medical Officer of Health with regard to this coming decline in the population. He says:
It is probable that the change in age-distribution will continue. If this forecast be correct, the outlook upon the provision of many of the social services must undergo a gradual alteration; on the one hand are, for example, maternity and child welfare work, schools, institutions for the normal and abnormal young, and isolation hospitals; on the other hand, institutions for the care of the aged and old age pensioners.
The point that he is making is that there is bound to be a reorganisation of the various health services; and that is only from the point of view of the Chief Medi-


cal Officer, but what about housing? The housing situation seems to me to be fraught with danger. At the moment, I think I am right in saying the supply of houses is about 1,000,000 a year. It has been estimated, though I do not necessarily accept the estimate, that in 20 years from now that housing need will have dropped to 4,500. Take the question of education. I should imagine that in the lifetime of most of the Members of this House the problem of redundant schools will arise. At the moment we are faced with a shortage of schools, but it may well be that in 20 years' time we shall have a problem of too many schools. Then, of course, when you come to the question of pensions, it must be obvious to every hon. Member that there is bound to be, with a declining population and with the aged becoming more and the young fewer, a very big increase in the number of pensions which will have to be paid both to people of old age and to widows, and also to blind persons.
Such is the picture as events may occur in England, but never in this country have we kept our eyes firmly fixed on our own shores. There is the question of emigration and of the Empire. We had a long discussion the other day on the Empire Settlement Bill, and I will not go into that matter now, but the House will remember the remarkable statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced his Budget in 1935. I venture to read it because it shows that the Government are fully alive to this problem. The right hon. Gentleman was dealing with this problem of the decline in population and its effect on emigration in the Empire, and he said:
I must say that I look upon the continued diminution of the birth-rate in this country with considerable apprehension. At the present time it may seem that we have here a larger population than we are able to support in England … But I have a feeling that the time may not be far distant when that position will be reversed, when the countries of the British Empire, will be crying out for more citizens of the right breed, and when we in this country shall not be able to supply the demand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1935; col. 1634, Vol. 300.]
That seems to me to be a very remarkable statement from my right hon. Friend, who is certainly not profligate with his language. It is perfectly conceivable that there may be a complete change, that

The whole tendency may be reversed, and that the birth-rate may again go up.

Mr. George Griffiths: It will later on.

Mr. Cartland: No one can say, but at least it seems unlikely. I cannot see that the Ministry of Health can do very much more in the way of lowering the death-rate. It has been pretty steady since 1910. We have already increased the expectation of life in this country by 20 years, and a remarkable tribute is certainly due to the work in that connection of the Ministry of Health, but I do not think we could expect them to be able to do very much more. There is the question of the maternity services and maternal mortality; I think it is more than likely that the Ministry there will he able to extend their services considerably and make a still greater impression on the number of deaths of mothers and children at a very early age, but even then, supposing the Ministry are able to make a very remarkable increase in regard to the saving of life among mothers, it is not going to reverse the whole trend which, remember, has been going in the same direction since 1875.
Even if you cannot reverse the trend, can you stop the decline? Can you say, "Now that the population has dropped we will stop at this level; we have, we think, enough people in this country, and we do not want any more"? I feel that we are on a slippery slope and that we are going faster and faster, that it is impossible, if you like to put it that way, to put the brake on and to stop where we want to stop. I feel that the nation has got to the edge of an abyss and is looking over and sees the danger that lies beyond. There is still time to climb back, but it is a very dangerous situation. I think that, with energy and with concentrated effort, it is possible for us to see the dangers and also to find out the path which will lead us back, and it is because of that, because of the need for knowledge of the dangers ahead and the way which will lead us to security, that I hope that the House will accept this Motion

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to second the Motion.
While my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) is a bachelor and is not in a particularly


strong position to preach on this subject, nevertheless I think the House is indebted to him for having raised this very important topic at this critical moment in the history of our population. At the outset, I would like to emphasise that the problem of a declining population is not confined to this country. It would appear that, with the exception of Russia, all the European countries, the United States of America, and the British Dominions are approaching a stage at which they will be wholly incapable of maintaining a stationary population. In China and India the experts estimate that the population is continuing slowly to increase. There are no figures available for Japan to show whether the decline in fertility characteristic of industrialised nations has yet begun. As for Russia, it is estimated that she will double her population up to a figure of some 320,000,000 before there is any likelihood of a decline.
Let us examine the position in this country. I make no apology for quoting statistics in a Debate of this kind. In England and Wales during the l00 years from 1821 to 1921 the population rose from 12,000,000 to 37,000,000. The birth rate likewise rose steadily for a while, reaching a peak in 1871, when it was 35 per thousand of the population. Since then the birth rate has continuously declined and by 1901 it had dropped to 29. By 1921 it had further declined to 23 and in 1935 it reached the low figure of 14. That is to say, since 1871 the birth rate of this country has much mere than halved it self. The population, nevertheless, has been increasing and will continue to increase, though the peak will probably be reached in the course of the next few years. The fact that the population has been increasing while the birth rate has been declining is due, of course, to the even greater decline in the death rate. The death rate has fallen from 22 in 1871 to II in 1935—it has been halved in those years. The expectation of life has risen from approximately 40 in 1871 to 60 in 1931. That is to say, during that period the expectation of life has increased by 20 years.
That is, however, a very delusive figure. It is no good hon. Members thinking that because the expectation of life has increased 20 years, they can hope to live

20 years longer than their parents, because that will not be the case. The advance of medicine, surgery and hygiene have undoubtedly made a great improvement in the health of the nation, but they have made very little difference in the expectation of life of adults. The expectation of life of a man of 65 to-day as compared with a man of 65 in 1871 has increased by only some nine months. Where a change has taken place is in the extremely satisfactory decline in infant mortality. In the category of children under one year of age, the deaths have fallen from one in every seven live births in 1886 to one in every 20 live births in 1935. In other words, during that period infant mortality has been reduced by about two-thirds. That is a very satisfactory accomplishment. Nevertheless, I do not altogether share my hon. Friend's view that it cannot be improved. One in 20 is still a high figure, and I hope that with the progress of science a further improvement will be made. However, let no one imagine that the decline in our population can be arrested merely by a continued reduction in infant mortality. If every child born to-day were to survive to maturity, the present birth rate would be too low to save our population from a decline.
There have been numerous scientific forecasts of the future size of our population. The figures of the different estimates vary to some extent, but the trend which they all reveal is the same. It is an accepted fact that the present English birth rate is such as to lose us one-quarter of our population per generation. Dr. Charles estimates that in 60 years' time, 64 per cent. of the women in the country will be over 50, that is to say, over child-bearing age. As a consequence of this trend, Professor Can-Saunders reckons that when the present tendencies have fully worked themselves out we shall probably be losing as much as half our population per generation. Dr. Charles, who is one of the greatest living experts on population problems, reckons that, assuming that the present tendency of the birth rate and of the death rate to decline is maintained, the population of England and Wales will have fallen in 30 years' time to 35,000,000, and that it will continue to fall at an increasing rate until in 100 years it will have dwindled to the paltry figure of 4,500,000—that is to say just over


half the present population of greater London or half that of the little country of Belgium.
What are the reasons for this decline? It is not over-population. The birth rate began to fall nearly 70 years ago when our population was no more than 22,000,000. Moreover, the decline in birth rate has been most marked in the sparsely populated British Dominions. It is not due to poverty. In actual fact the wealth per head has increased during the same period in which the birth rate has declined. There is no doubt that the main reason for the decline in the birth rate is the increased knowledge and practice of birth control. This started among the richer sections of the population and has now spread throughout. What will be the results of this decline in the population? The most striking result will be the change in the age distribution of the population. About one-half the population of Great Britain to-day are over 30. In 50 years' time it is probable that half the population will be over 40. Let us examine the distribution among the age groups. There are to-day 10,000,000 children under 15, but it is estimated that in 1976 there will be only 4,000,000. There are now 3,000,000 people over 65; however, it is reckoned that by 1976 that figure will have doubled to 6,000,000. As for the age group which provides the bulk of the nation's workers, those between 15 and 45, it is estimated that this group will be reduced during the same period by nearly one-half, that is, from 21,000,000 to 12,000,000.
Let us consider the effect upon employment. There is no reason to suppose that the problem of unemployment will be solved by a reduction in the size of the population. Wide fluctuations in the volume of unemployment have taken place quite irrespective of the size of the population. A reduction in the population would only be a cure for unemployment if the present total volume of consumption were maintained. Actually, as I will attempt to show later, the exact reverse is probable. In fact, the standard of life would be almost certain to decline. This would inevitably be accompanied by a shrinkage of the whole industrial machine and consequent large-scale unemployment. I ask the House to look at the position of the Dominions. It is an accepted fact that they need a far greater population

than they now possess in order to develop their resources to the full. Yet in 20 years' time, if the present trend continues, their population is likely to begin to decline also. Moreover, if we are in the same unhappy position here it is unlikely that we shall be able to make up the deficiency by increased immigration. Unless, therefore, the population trend in Great Britain and Western Europe alters, the Dominions, in order to maintain their population, may be forced to seek emigrants from Asiatic and Eastern European countries where the decline in population is not so imminent. Apart from the cultural aspect and the weakening of Imperial ties, it would involve them in all the difficulties consequent upon the importation of cheap labour accustomed to a substantially lower standard of life.
Let us now consider the defence position. I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to suggest that we want a larger population merely for the sake of what is popularly called "cannon fodder." Nevertheless, it must be obvious that a great Empire whose population is not only declining but is also on an average growing older is particularly vulnerable to attack.
The most serious aspect of the problem, however, is that which concerns the standard of life. Although the working population will continue to increase for a period after the total population has begun to decline, the time will sooner or later be reached when a smaller number of productive workers will be called upon to support an increasing number of old people. One aspect of this will be the increased burden to the nation of old age pensions, which at present cost £40,000,000, and in 1965 are likely to have risen to £64,000,000. There is no reason to suppose that a smaller population would give a higher output of work per head. In fact, the average efficiency of a population of which an increasing number of workers were of an advanced age, would tend to be lower. It is furthermore certain that a smaller population would inevitably lead to a shrinkage in the home market and a reduction in industrial output. This would sooner or later lead to the breakdown of the whole of our system of mass production and of industrial specialisation, which is entirely dependent on the existence of a large market to consume the mass-produced goods. Therefore, it is clear that a de-


cline in the total number of our population, together with an increase in the proportion of old people, must inevitably result, sooner or later, in a marked deterioration of our standard of life. The whole of our social and economic efforts for the past century have been devoted to raising that standard of life. Surely, therefore, the prospect of the undoing of all that has been achieved in the past at such pains and at such sacrifice presents one of the darkest and gravest problems with which this country has been faced for many a long year.
What can be done to remedy this position? The decline in the birth rate is mainly due to the practice of birth control. How can this be overcome? There are two alternative courses open to us. The first is to forbid birth control by making it illegal, but that would, I think, in the opinion of most hon. Members, be a retrograde step. We do not wish by legislation to create large unwanted families. The alternative course is so to alter social and economic conditions as to make people want to have large families and that, I think, is the course which will commend itself to us all. However, before we can form any opinion on how to raise the birth rate we must examine the reasons why people at present want to limit the size of their families. There are many reasons. There are the reasons connected with maternity—the pains, the fears and the hardships of confinement. The Midwives Act will do a great deal to improve that position, and for that we are very grateful to the Government, but there is still much to be done. I think it would not be out of place in this Debate to pay a tribute to the untiring efforts which have been made in this cause by the wife of our Prime Minister, Mrs. Baldwin. There is one practical thing which could be done immediately on the Committee stage of the Factory Bill, and that would be to incorporate in that Bill the provisions of the Washington Convention giving six weeks' cessation of work before as well as after childbirth, with a maintenance allowance for the woman and her child. The present law provides for a cessation of work for only four weeks after childbirth and a maternity benefit of 40s.
Another reason is the interference with the mother's working capacity. That undoubtedly has a great effect upon the size

of families. In 1934 there were only 84 nursery schools for children between the ages of three and five, with accommodation for no more than 6,000 children. The extension of nursery schools and creches would undoubtedly bring great relief to the mothers. Housing is another factor which must be considered. No inquiry would be complete which did not include an investigation into the relation between housing conditions and population. Professor Carr-Sanders suggests that it is possible that, taking the size of the new houses and flats, together with the definition of overcrowding, the result will be to produce a situation in which the population of those houses cannot replace itself. If that is true it is certainly a most disturbing factor, and at any rate merits investigation.
Undoubtedly, another reason for the limitation of the size of families is the cost. In the first place there is the cost of getting married and of setting up a home. Countless couples, have to postpone marriage for years until they have saved enough money to meet the initial cost of providing a home. This difficulty has with some success been met in Germany by the institution of marriage loans, a quarter of the debt being cancelled upon the birth of each child. It is sometimes argued that this merely ante-dates marriages, which would in any case take place some five years later, and that there is nothing gained. I do not share that view, for even if it led to no increase in the size of those families it would be worth while for this reason, that by the advance of the average childbearing age by those five years we should, in every four generations, be gaining a whole extra generation. Then we have to consider the cost of feeding and clothing children. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his last Budget speech that "even a little help to those who are carrying on the race would not be wasted." The increased children's allowances in the last two Budgets have certainly been a step in the right direction, but I respectfully submit that they are not sufficient to make any appreciable change in the size of our population.
Lastly, there is the cost of education. I think this plays a very big part in the limitation of families among certain sections of the population. The State pro-


vides excellent free education, improving every year, but, unfortunately, a kind of educational snobbery has been growing up. All those who can possibly afford it have come to feel that it is due to their social status to scrape together enough money to send their children to some expensive private educational establishment instead of to the State schools. This tendency is certainly having the effect of limiting the size of families. I therefore hope that the desirability of doing what has been done in many other countries in recent years, that is to say of making attendance at the State schools obligatory for rich and poor alike, will receive earnest consideration. The Minister laughs, but I think it is a matter which deserves consideration. Not only would it encourage larger families, but it would, incidentally, do much to strengthen the spirit of good fellowship and unity among all sections of our people, and would be a further step in the direction of equality of opportunity.
In conclusion, let me say that we are asking to-night for an inquiry to be held and action to be taken at the very earliest possible moment. The extreme urgency of the matter lies in the fact that time is the essence of the population problem. If the present unhappy tendency is allowed to continue unchecked, action which to-day would be sufficient to remedy the entire situation will in 10 years time be totally inadequate. Even now assistance of a most far-reaching nature will be required. There is no room for hesitation or compromise in dealing with a matter of this gravity. The last thing any of us wants to do is to undermine or weaken the sense of responsibility of parents. Nevertheless, if it is recognised that children are not only an asset, but a vital necessity to the State, then surely it is only right that the State should shoulder its fair share of the burden.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Parker: If my Amendment had been in order, it would have made clear that on this side of the House we look at this matter from a rather different angle. This is an extremely important subject, however, and we welcome the suggestion that the Government should hold an inquiry into the population question. A decline in the number of the population is a very serious matter, and something

should be done to deal with that situation. There are at the present time numerous absurdities in our national life. Town-planning authorities are drawing up plans for housing an enormous population which, we know, will never exist, and organisations like building societies are pursuing a policy which depends upon an ever-increasing number of houses being built for people who are prepared to put money down on deposit and pay the remainder over a period of 20 years. With the present tendencies in population, all these building societies will, in a very few years, be in Queer Street.
I agree with the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) that a mere decline of population would not solve the unemployment problem. I see no reason why there should not then be exactly the same ratio between unemployed and employed as there is to-day. The real cure for unemployment is something quite different. I agree also with my hon. Friends who have pointed out that the social services, so far as they are planned, are planned for the present population or for a larger population. It is necessary to bear in mind also that our industries and our production of food are related to the size of the population. We assume, in our national life to-day, that we shall go on with the same size of population as now, or a somewhat larger one, but if the population should decline, serious consequences will result to agriculture and manufactures, especially the manufacture of consumable goods.
Unless something is done in the immediate future, the first generation to begin to feel and to see a big decline in population will have to deal with a double burden. It will have the burden of maintaining the old people and it will also have to make a very special effort to stop the decline in population. If we made the effort now, a fearless, big effort, it would be better than waiting for another 10 years or so. In 30 years, I have not the slightest doubt, our children—I speak as a bachelor—will not be prepared to pay large pensions to the old people over 60 years of age because, if present tendencies continue, those old people will be one-third of the population. At the present time we are prepared to make many sacrifices to assist the old people, but I do not think that will necessarily be the case in 30 years' time.
Various solutions have been suggested for the population problem. It is high time that we should expose the whole question of emigration. I do not believe that it is any use to-day. We should not try to decrease the population of this country in any way, although the Government bring forward from time to time proposals to increase emigration. The case against emigration is as strong as against transference from derelict industrial areas. We shall need in this country all the people that we can keep in the immediate future, and we should discourage emigration. There is no future for a bigger population on the land in the Dominions. Mr. Walter Nash, Minister for Finance and Marketing in New Zealand, pointed out in a recent speech that the agricultural population of New Zealand—by which he meant farmers and agricultural workers—had declined by 9,000 in the last 10 years. In that period, the agricultural production of New Zealand had doubled. The same process is going on in all the other Dominions and in the United States of America. So far as one can see, there is no future for settling people on the land in the Dominions, and if we emigrate people they will merely go to the large towns there, which have their own problems of unemployment.
Another solution put forward is that of land settlement here at home. On that subject also I am sceptical. I do not think there is any future for placing any large part of our population on the land. It is time that the "Back to the Land" movement was exposed. For years before the War the Liberal party made determined efforts to establish a large number of small holdings and to put people on the land, but the only result was that as they put people on the land other people left the land, and there was no increase in the number of people earning their livelihood on the land. In this country, as in New Zealand, a decline in the agricultural population is now in progress. I see no reason why the movement which is now taking place in industry, of an increase in production side by side with a smaller number of people bringing about that production, should not also take place upon the land.
I would like to add one observation to that proposed solution. There is some case for encouraging afforestation and

various forms of settlement in connection with afforestation. That is the only form of land settlement which can be made to absorb a part of the population; but that is a long-term policy rather than a short. I do not think you would have a rapid increase in the number of people on the land as a result, because you would have to wait for the forests to be fully developed before there could be any effect on the population on the land.
A further point, made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) concerned marriage bounties, but, so far as I can understand, after examining the situation in Germany, Italy and France, that scheme has not been a success. It may have had some small success; after Herr Hitler introduced the marriage bounty there was an increase in the birthrate and in the number of marriages, but it was only a very short-run increase. Decrease is under way again. Assuming that the German population continues with the birth rate shown in the figures for 1934, the German population will, in time, disappear altogether. One may say, therefore, that a marriage bounty policy is not likely to cure the population problem so far as this country is concerned. To my mind something else is necessary. I am prepared to admit that, in this country and many others, one sees a decline in the birth rate as the standard of life improves, but personally I believe it is necessary to look deeper than that. Professor Carr Saunders, who has been mentioned already, said, with reference to this problem:
The conditions also influence the age at which menstruation begins. The better the conditions, the earlier does it begin. The mature period tends to be prolonged where conditions are good. It certainly comes to an end earlier among the labouring than among the richer classes.
In other words, although at the present time a decline of the birth rate is observed when the conditions of the people begin to improve, yet good conditions make possible a longer period of child-bearing. If any solution of this problem is to be found, I think the first thing that will have to be done is to convince people that the maintenance of the race is of itself desirable. I think that many people do not believe that that is the case to-day. Secondly, it has to be made worth the while of the people to maintain the race. How can that be done? Personally, I believe, with the hon. Gentleman oppo-


site, that we need better maternity services, and we also need proper nutrition and care and education of children. We have to make certain, also, that children will have a job when they become adults. But I believe the most important thing that can be done to make people really believe that the race is worth maintaining is to eliminate the danger of war. I believe that, so long as we have the danger of war in the world, as we have it to-day, mothers will not be prepared to bring children into the world. I do not believe that we can have that security of life, either national or international, which is necessary to maintain the race, unless we introduce that planned Socialist State in which we on these benches believe.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Pilkington: I should like to begin by congratulating the proposers of the Motion on their speeches, and also on bringing this subject before the House. In my opinion, it is one of the most vital questions with which we have to deal. It would seem that in a democratic country a wide volume of demand is necessary before the Government cart see its way to taking action. That has been the case in the last century over the question of social welfare; it has been the case in recent years over the question of rearmament; and I think we must expect that it will be the case over this problem of population. The facts are well known; they have been admirably sketched in by previous speakers this evening; and perhaps I may be forgiven if I go a little further afield before I come to the question of what can be done in the circumstances as they exist to-day.
During the last four centuries, Europe, the smallest of the five continents, expanded and spread its civilisation over both the Americas, over all Africa, over all Australia, and over half Asia. During that period the upward trend of population was prodigious. In 1600, Europe had about 100,000,000 people; in 1700 it had about 150,000,000; in 1800 about 180,000,000; by 1900 the population of Europe had grown to the colossal figure of 500,000,000. In the second decade of this century there took place a fratricidal, and very nearly suicidal, struggle which, among many other things, served to accentuate two tendencies which had been becoming more and more apparent for some time. The first of these tendencies

was a cessation in the growth of the population of Europe, and the second was a great nationalist and political re-awakening in the East accompanied by the same prodigious increase in population which before had been the characteristic of Europe. It is instructive to compare the condition of Europe to-day with the condition of Greece in ancient times. Greece had then a marvellous civilisation, but, because the city-States of Greece were unable to compose their quarrels, Greece fell before the superior might of Rome. To-day we have Europe, also with a marvellous civilisation, unable, apparently, to compose its quarrels, and we see in the East new, vigorous, expanding nations whose shadow is yearly growing longer and longer over the West. In looking ahead and trying to plan for the future, all that we can do is to take into consideration tendencies as they now exist, and examine the position towards which they are heading. There can be no doubt that, if tendencies continue in the future as they are to-day, there will be an eclipse of Europe. That eclipse can only be averted by some violent effort of will on Europe's part to change the whole direction of its political and economic activities.

Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear!

Mr. Pilkington: I may, perhaps, quote a foreign statesman whose name, I am afraid, will not meet with the same approval of the hon. Member. Signor Mussolini, in a speech which he made in 1934, said "Europe is dying. There is an increasing and a progressive diminution of the white race." He went on to note with dismay that even in America more people were dying every year than were being born; he said that fecundity was the antidote of unemployment—that every new cradle meant a new demand for goods and services, for work and production. Then he quoted Professor Richet as saying that the yellow races were increasing five or six times faster than the white, and he ended by asking, "Will our grandchildren be rari nantes in a sea of saffron?"
Let us consider the position during the last 400 years in this country. In 1600, the population of Great Britain was about 5,000,000. In 1700 it was 6,000,000; in 1800, 11,000,000; and in 1900, 37,000,000, while to-day it is about 42,000,000. It has been calculated,


taking the birth rate in the last decade as a guide, that by the end of this century it will have shrunk to only 20,000,000. That means that within two generations—within the time of our own grandchildren—the population of this country will have fallen to that appallingly low figure of only 20,000,000. And beyond these shores there is the Empire, an Empire which, as is often repeated in this House, is an Empire of free democracies in a world of dictatorships. But it is an Empire which is comparatively empty and in which the birth rate is already on the decline. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr.Parker) said that he was against emigration because this country needed all the people that it had, but I submit that he is looking at the matter from a point of view from which we ought not to look at it, that is to say, as though this country lived by itself and was not the centre and heart of that Empire. I say that this problem has to be regarded as one which concerns the whole Empire, and not only this country.
To these facts as I have stated them, I think fairly, even if superficially, there seems to be on the face of it only one answer. We must use every means in our power to take immediate steps towards increasing our birth rate—if we can. I know that to this answer there is an objection raised by some people, though it has not been raised as yet tonight. It is that it is wrong to begin to think of increasing our population until we have solved the question of unemployment. To my mind that argument does not hold water for a moment. The unemployment in the whole of the Empire numbers under 2,000,000. But this is a problem that deals with unnumbered millions and with countless generations yet to come. It is as if a man, instead of safeguarding the future by getting himself vaccinated, put it off because to-day he had indigestion. Unemployment is a grievous problem which must be, and I believe will be, solved by the adaptation and improvement of the present economic system, not by its scrapping and replacing by some foreign system. It may be true that to-day we do not want an extra million adults on our hands although even that is questionable, because an extra million adults on our hands

would mean so many more mouths to fill and needs to satisfy. But I think it will be generally accepted that within 20 or 30 years we shall need that extra million adults and, that being so, it is to-day, and not then, that we have to act.
How, then, are we to bring about a renewed upward trend in the birth rate? Various suggestions have been made, all of them, I believe, good. I very much hope that after this Debate the Government will institute an inquiry which will be able to examine the reasons which have brought about the present situation and the steps that may be taken to remedy it.
In the second place I very much hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to repeating what he did in 1935 and 1936 towards relieving the parents of a family. I hope he realises the widespread satisfaction that was felt throughout the country when he granted a certain alleviation to parents of families in those two years, and also the widespread hope that he will repeat that precedent in the coming Budget. He quite rightly refused to commit himself at Question Time the other day but, as has been brought out in speeches that we have heard, he is in fact fully alive to the question. We know, unfortunately, that the coming Budget is not going to make very happy reading but, if he can see his way to making any alleviation at all, I hope it will be on those lines. If he is at his wits' ends where he is to find the money, I suggest that he considers imposing some sort of a bachelor tax. I learned with amazement and horror that even in this House, where the age limit is, I think, fairly high, and which should set an example to the rest of the country, there are nearly 200 bachelors—a situation which hon. Members should take immediate steps to remedy.
But—and this is more important than the question of finance—I think this problem has to be solved by education—by an entire change in attitude of mind of the people. The modern way of looking at life is against producing large families. This may be caused by modern ways of spending leisure, by small houses, or by wide knowledge of birth control. It may be caused by women going into public life—lambs straying out into the jungle. To change this attitude, if it is necessary to change it—and I believe


most people consider that it is—is a vital necessity. The Government can do a lot towards it. The Press can do far more, provided that their effort is a sustained and continued effort. Everyone in the country who is convinced of the urgency of the problem can and should do something towards bringing it home to the general mass of the people if we are ever going to safeguard our nation in the years that are to come.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland: It is, perhaps, significant that the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion as well as all who have so far succeeded in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, are not over 3o years of age. I hope before the conclusion of the Debate some of our seniors will indicate that they have serious sympathies towards this problem, which will not produce any very remarkable results in their lifetime but which is bound to produce quite remarkable results in our lifetime, and which may, unless we take steps to prevent it, produce quite staggering results within the lifetime of our children. The villain of the piece in this problem is, of course, the net reproduction rate, because whereas in 1836 100 women during their years of child bearing produced 140 potential mothers—a state of affairs which allowed the population to double in 50 years—by 1900 100 women in their years of child bearing produced 100 potential mothers and to-day 100 women in their years of child bearing produce 82 potential mothers. This process of fall in the reproduction rate has gone on relentlessly in good times and bad, in peace and war, and, although it has struck some nations later than others, it now covers the whole of Europe, and in particular the Northern and Western nations.
We are, then, in the presence of an impressive, relentless, deep-rooted social movement which cannot be met by the application of a mere palliative here and there. There are some things—and we may as well realise it—which we cannot prevent, whatever we do and whatever miracles may occur. In 60 years' time, do what we may, the population of these islands will be about two-thirds to three-quarters its present number, and that arises from the simple and unalterable fact that in 30 years' time there will be only two-thirds of the number of mothers that there are to-day. We cannot alter that

state of affairs, because those mothers are already born, and therefore, even if we do nothing, the population in 60 years will drop to two-thirds of its present level. That, I think, is not alarming. We might get on with two-thirds of our present numbers but, unless we do something to reverse this trend, which has been going on quite steadily for a century, within a 100 years from this date the population will go down to the ludicrous figure of 4,500,000. We must do something now in order to prevent that fact from inevitably taking place. We should try to realise some of the ways in which the problem cannot be solved.
The problem is said to be caused by birth control. That is so, and I do not believe that birth control has yet anything like reached its maximum effect. For that reason I believe that it would be wholly improper to oppose birth control. There are many who oppose it sincerely on religious and social grounds, but they ought to recognise that birth control is an existing fact and that whatever they do, knowledge of birth control methods, both sound and unsound, will spread from one human being to another. Moreover, other nations have tried to suppress birth control wholly without effect. There is one thing I would beg that we should not oppose, but that we should, on the other hand, encourage, namely, birth control clinics, or I should say, children's clinics. It is wrong to call them birth control clinics. As I have said, methods of birth control, good and bad, will spread throughout the population from one person to another, whatever the State may do. It is the unhealthy methods that can be spread in that way and can be exploited by commercial interests, but the children's clinics to-day are spreading the healthy methods.
One clinic with which I have had some personal association by reason of being a trustee bases its experience on 100,000 cases and is really able to give fairly safe advice. It is a remarkable fact, and it will be of interest to those who are mistaken and oppose these children's clinics, that the number of patients who come to the clinic in order to obtain advice as to how to get a child is equal to the number who come to ask for advice on how to avoid having a child they do not want. It must be admitted that the mothers of the future will be


better able to bear children if they are born in families in which the children are spaced at reasonable intervals of from two to two-and-a-half years, rather than in families in which the children are born at intervals of a year or not very much more.
Another way in which I believe we will not solve this problem is by little financial inducements to parenthood. I disagree on that matter with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Pilkington). If you contemplate a family who have decided on financial grounds that they cannot afford to have another child, what is the sort of sum which will make a substantial difference to their means? Shall we put it at 6s. a week for the first 15 years of the child's life? If any couple were offered 6s. a week in respect of a child for the first 15 years, that might be some inducement, but not a very certain one, to make them just tip the balance over between having and not having another child. Six shillings a week is £15 a year, and suppose you say that the first child should be left to look after itself, and that you will give the inducement only on the second and subsequent child. In order to maintain our population we require 11,000,000 children under 15. Of these, 4,000,000 are first children, and there will be at any time 7,000,000 children who are second or subsequent children on which we have to pay £15 a year. That will represent a total of £105,000,000 a year. Therefore an inducement of 6s., which could hardly be effective in turning the balance, would cost us £105,000,000 a year. That almost puts it beyond question that financial inducement must be put aside.
The trouble is that we are profoundly ignorant of the causes which induce childlessness. We know that there are many, and that one is the maternal mortality. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion suggested an inquiry, and it ought to be the first work of this committee of inquiry, which I hope the Government will appoint, to carry out a searching and dignified investigation into the relative weight of the different causes of childlessness. If we were to find that fear of pain was an important cause, we should naturally press forward with vigour the development and cheapening

of the machinery which already exists for removing pain, and which now can be operated, with the assistance, I think, of one midwife, in addition to the midwife required to attend the birth itself. But it might be possible that the medical profession were quite near to devising a machine which could be operated by the one midwife. If we find that pain is substantially a cause of childlessness, it is in that direction that we must follow our inquiry. If, on the other hand, we find that maternal mortality is the more important cause, we must pursue the inquiry in that direction.
If one were to endeavour to forecast conclusions, I believe that the inquiry would reach the conclusion that the problem of increasing the net reproduction of the race is intimately connected with the whole problem of improving our economic and political environment. I do not believe that the nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution and exchange is the only way in which the economic and political environment can be improved. There are many problems which might be investigated on their merits, and I do not think that the answer will always turn out to be the nationalisation of the men who sell whelks in the High Street in Bethnal Green. It would be a pity to nationalise them. I do not believe that small measures will solve this problem. One matter which will come up clearly is that in the towns the reproduction rate is lower than that in the country. I agree with the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), though I would not, on that account, try to drive people out of the towns, but we have to make our towns more attractive.
We have to face the complete rebuilding and replanning of our towns in the next 40 years. It is a little unfortunate that this problem, which is going to leave the building industry unemployed, may require for its solution a very large expansion in the activities of that same building industry. I believe the conclusion will be reached that, either women must not be allowed to take employment or there must be a complete nursery service for children, municipally or nationally run and controlled. There ought to be a nursery school in every residential part of every town within the


next 40 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "As in Russia."] I agree, and it is a direction in which the committee might very well inquire. Our towns must be rebuilt so as to create an entirely new environment. The problem raises the whole question of economic security, but this has to be taken into account. We already notice the fact that 30 years hence there will be far fewer women of childbearing age, and also there will be far fewer men of an age at which man's active physical work is done. Potential parents might have it pointed out to them that their children at the age of 20 are going to suffer much less competition for the sort of jobs which are done by men of 20 than the present men of 20 are suffering. That will be found inevitably to be so.
Lastly, I agree with the hon. Member for Romford that we shall not get a solution of this problem unless we can remove the fear of war. I should, however, soon be out of order if I dealt with that point. Therefore, I support the appeal for a commission of inquiry and suggest that it should be a definite instruction to the members of that commission that they are expected to submit a report sufficiently far reaching and startling in its proposals to compel the attention of the community to this very serious problem.

9.6 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: It is very interesting for me, as one of the seniors, to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) to take the ball over from the juniors who have delivered such interesting speeches on this subject. I feel particularly anxious to say a few words for two reasons. In the first place, a good many appeals have been made to medical experience and, secondly, I have been personally engaged in inquiring about the declining population for many years. I remember in my early childhood my father, a clergyman, was sufficiently advanced to realise in 1871, before the birth rate had begun to decline in this country, but had begun to decline elsewhere, the danger that might come to this country. He kept figures regularly every week of the births and deaths in London. I had to keep the statistics for him when he was away, even after the Registrar-General's statistics were a great deal more

useful. He could not, however, be persuaded that that was so. The fact is that from my earliest days I and others with me have recognised the appalling danger that was facing us if we took it for granted that we were to go on with an increasing population, and then we found ourselves disillusioned.
Several points have been raised, some of which require some qualification. There was one point on which I might be inclined to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), who seconded the Motion so well. He said that the whole trouble could be attributed to contraceptive methods. That is not the case. It is true that contraceptive methods have enabled the decline in the birth rate to take effect very rapidly and very largely, but long before contraceptive methods were introduced, the decline had begun. It had begun long before contraceptive methods came within the reach of the general mass of the people. At the beginning of this century we find that the decline had set in. Perhaps I might quote even further back in history. It is strange how history repeats itself. Polyvius over 2,000 years ago wrote:
In our time Greece has been afflicted with a failure of offspring. For when men gave themselves up to ease, comfort and indolence, and would neither marry nor rear children born out of marriage, or at the most only one or two, in order to leave these rich and to bring them up in luxury, the evil soon spread imperceptibly but with rapid growth. There is no need to consult the gods about the modes of deliverance from this evil: for the first thing we have to do is to change our habits, or at all events to enact laws compelling parents to rear their children.
Therefore to suggest that it is due to modern methods of prevention in our case in the last 20 or 30 years does not entirely put the situation as we read of it in history. We have it in the history of Greece and the decline and fall of the Romans. Here is another quotation: Sir John Seely wrote of Rome:
The invincible power has been tamed by a slow disease. Against this disease she is powerless; and the disease is sterility. Men were wanting; the Empire perished for want of men.
Let me give one last quotation. It is from the Prime Minister in a very notable address which he gave to the Classical Association about to years ago:
There are fears among those who are responsible for Government to-day, taking


grisly shape in the twilight. Rome has left danger signals along the road. It is for us to hear them.
There is no cheap way of accounting for this trouble or of getting out of it. We have to face it. We find it all through history, not only in Rome and Greece, but those towns and cities which archaeological investigations have brought to light in Asia, Arabia and other places, which have passed away and perished. It seems to me that we are more likely to arrive at the real cause of this trouble if we seek it in history brought up to date as applied to our own life than if we take the narrower view.
We must interpret the word "luxury" in its real meaning, not in the common meaning of luxury as applied to the bloated rich, but in its real sense. That is possibly one of the greatest factors in the trouble. People 0by degrees, very largely owing to the stimulus of public opinion, competition and publicity, tend to luxury. Competition urges people to a higher standard of what, in the first instance, is comfort, and which later on becomes necessity without comfort. One family finds it necessary to take their children to the cinema once a week, and therefore the children of other families expect their parents to do the same thing for them. That becomes the custom all along the line. Then certain parents feel that they must take their children twice or three times a week to the cinema. We also see this development in other ways. The same principle applies in other directions. When I was a school medical officer I saw the excellent effect of example in regard to the cleanliness of children. By degrees cleanliness became a competition, and the result was that poor children who could not help themselves and came dirty to school were twitted by their fellow school children, and there developed competition among them in the direction of cleanliness.
The same thing applies not only to health and cleanliness, but to standards of amusement. I should like to ask those hon. Members who know better than myself, because they are of the age of 30 or less, whether this sense of competition does not also apply among them in regard to the different fashions of the day. Do they not tend constantly to rise to increased standards of entertainment? It is the same also in regard to

motor cars and motor cycles. Everyone wants to be equal to his fellow-man, and there has come a stage when this desire for a standard of so-called luxury and comfort has become a real factor in the question of population.
There is no doubt that the attractions of finance have had a great effect. What is wanted, especially by the great masses of the people who are most concerned, is that they shall have sufficient to be able to bring up their children in a reasonably decent and respectable standard of life, but this idea would be quite useless unless there was combined with it a change in public opinion in regard to the standard of living. I think this is combined with, but subsidiary to, the desire for a simple life. The present generation cannot speak about a simple life. It is hardly possible at any time to any one individual, and possibly we shall have to wait until the next generation grows up and feels more definitely the danger that is before us. There have been certain movements among the people for simple living. From the physical point of view this is to be encouraged, but I want to remind the House that the decline of the birth rate is not merely a question of quantity but of quality.
There is a quality danger and a very remarkable one. As I look back on families which I have known and remember the old days, of families of five, seven and nine, it was not the eldest son who was the most useful. This was possibly due to maternal experience or the circumstances of the family and to the fact that the younger sons had the advantage of the experience of their parents in training their elder brothers and sisters. They were not sufficiently Benjamins of the family to be spoilt. In history you find that very few of the great men either in statesmanship or in the Services, in art or invention, were the eldest sons. Over and over again they have been the younger sons, and, therefore, a decline in the birth rate will be a serious matter. I am afraid that if it continues we are going to lose an immense amount of quality and ability, in church and in the State, in art and in other walks of life. I think that a declining birth rate will deprive us of quality. If we consider competition with other countries in the world we are also losing the power to compete.
Hon. Members have called for a further inquiry. I want them to remember the great labours which were conducted by the Commission of Inquiry which started in 1913, the National Birth Rate Commission, which was started under the chairmanship of Bishop Boyd-Carpenter. It was referred to by the "Times" and commended to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister of that day, Mr. Asquith. The chairman of the Commission introduced the school medical services on to the Statute Book, and he was succeeded by Dean Inge and Sir James Marchant. It reported in 1916 in the middle of the War to Mr. Walter Long, then President of the Local Government Board, who said:
I thank your Committee for the splendid work they have done.
Their work was continued after the War. The commission was reconstituted in May, 1918, and published a report which I have brought down to the House in order to show that I am speaking the truth. This committee presented a second report in 1920, and hon. Members will find a great deal of information in it. I think that the time is ripe for a further inquiry, and although we cannot expect a very great deal from it—we must expect more from general publicity and a discussion of the subject openly—there is some advantage to be gained from a thorough overhauling inquiry by a commission. It would have good results. This is one of the most serious matters which can possibly come before any commission or public assembly and, therefore, I am glad that the hon. Member has raised it in such a splendid manner to-night.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Broad: I am encouraged by the speech of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) to enter into this discussion. Until he rose it seemed to be the peculiar sphere of young bachelors, who were much concerned about the awful consequences of limiting families. We have had many statistics given to us this evening. From those statistics they draw deductions and plot curves. That is all very well, but when you begin to plot curves in human affairs and follow out statistics to their logical conclusion you are very apt to be led astray. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) gave us figures to show that in the very

near future our population would decline to about 4,000,000 and that of Russia would be about 320,000,000. There is an obvious remedy, it seems to me. The great immediate cause of the decline is undoubtedly birth control, contraceptive methods. I think it is just as well, but the purpose of the people who understand and use these methods is not to prevent themselves having any family but to ensure that they shall have fewer children, better born, and with a better chance in life. All reasonable and informed people to-day are concerned to see that they keep their families within reasonable limits. There may be circumstances in society—leisure and health on the one hand, and selfishness on the other—which will prevent a small proportion of people having any family or only one child.
Among the mass of the people it is not the fear of maternity or the fear of being deprived of any little luxury or enjoyment but the uncertainty of life which makes them limit their families. Therefore, no inquiry which confines itself to statistical calculations will carry us very far. The question is one of psychology, political circumstances and the philosophy of life of the great mass of our people. It is not a question of poverty. When you reach a certain degree of poverty, the means test level, and inure people to that level, they do not trouble; they have the biggest families. Every child has to take its chance. It is when you raise people to a higher level of social culture that they will struggle to maintain it. I will not go further into statistics, because I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. But in 1800 the population of Ireland was just over 7,000,000. At the end of that century it was about half that, not because of birth control—they were all good Catholics—but because of absentee landlordism and bad economic conditions. Take the population of Scotland, which has always been prolific. For the last 130 years their population has been about stationary. Our population increased in the same time from about 8,500,000 to 40,000,000. In Russia, where they know more about birth control than they did a few years ago, because of economic security and the abolition of poverty, class distinctions, and snobbery, the population is growing at the alarming rate referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Hudson: At what rate is the population of Russia increasing?

Mr. Broad: It is increasing at the rate of 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 a year. After the War the population of Russia was 130,000,000, and now it is about 180,000,000. That is a very great advance. But I am not concerned to argue the affairs of Russia; here there is one greater than I in the affairs of that great country. One of the important factors which is preventing the younger people who would like to have families from having them, particularly in the London area, is the lack of housing accommodation, and the tremendous price which is charged for decontrolled houses, or apartments in the decontrolled houses. The Minister of Health, who in 1923 arranged for decontrol of houses, is more responsible for this great decline since then than any other person. I live in the constituency which I represent, and I sit one evening a week as magistrate and Member of Parliament to advise my people. Every Friday evening I get 12 or 15 vaccination forms to sign. I get people coming in who want houses. They are paying for two rooms in an outer suburb of Edmonton 18s. or one guinea a week out of a wage of 50s. or 60s. in London, and their workmen's fares are over 300 per cent. higher than they were pre-war. Can you wonder that they say, "We would like to have a family but we are not going to have a family in one or two rooms." The council will not let them have a house until they have one or two children. Consequently, they are between the devil and the deep sea, between the Blue Tories who have raised the rent by decontrol and the Red council who will not let them have houses until they have progeny. The wife is not content to stay in one or two rooms and says, "I will carry on with my work," and before two or three years have passed the family is existing on the wages of husband and wife. They will not have a family in those two rooms, and they carry on in that way.
Others, after years of waiting for a house, have gone to a building society, put down their little savings, which ought to furnish their house, as a deposit, and shouldered a burden of mortgage on £600 at rates of interest of 5 to 6 per cent. They furnish on the hire-purchase system. They are always in fear of losing their jobs. Can it be wondered that in those

circumstances they will not take on the responsibility of a family? I have made a rule of recommending to lower middle-class men that, if they attempt to buy a house, they should not pay more than two years' wages for it, and that if they pay rent, they should not pay more than one-fifth of their wages or salaries for rates, house rent and travelling. I can tell the House that to-day, even with the limited accommodation which they have, many of them are paying from one-third to one-half of their wages for the house-room alone. If these people came to me for advice, I would say to them, "Do not have children until they can be born in a decent home."
There is another factor to be considered. From inquiries that have been made, we are able to find out the rates of children in different classes of workers and society. One of the main things which is keeping the lower middle class, the salaried class, from having families, is their education and t heir training for their calling or profession. If they are elementary school teachers, it is very rare that they begin to earn anything before they are 21 years of age, and if they go in for a degree or a profession, they do not get a salary until they are 23 or 24 years of age. Then they start on a salary scale which goes up yearly by increments, beginning, for instance, at £180 and going up to £360 or £400 by gradual stages. They are middle-aged people before they get the income of their class. They feel that they have to keep up appearances in that class and they cannot do that and have a family as well. It is unfortunate that in all salary negotiations the organisations are usually represented by older gentlemen who only want a big salary at the end of the time. I am a mechanic, and I got the full rate of wages before I was 21 years of age, whereas those of my friends who went in for teaching did not earn a penny at that age. I have found that men of the skilled mechanic class are married fairly early and have two, three or four in their family before they are 30 years of age, about the age at which their friends in professions are thinking about getting married.
There is still another factor to be considered. Young people come to me every week and ask me this sort of question, "What do you think about this air-raids scheme? Do you think we are going to


have a war? I do not mind going myself, but what will happen to my wife and baby? "To-day, every young man who thinks regards himself as a potential conscript in the war that is coming, and he will not face marriage because he knows how the nation treated the wives and families of the men who went away before and he knows what happened to the poor chaps who came back. You can expand your armaments, you can have all the stunts and scares you like to make people prepared to pay for them, and you can prepare their minds for conscription, but if the picture is as it is presented to us, if the population is going down to 30 millions, 20 millions or four millions, what is the use of all those armaments? Who is going to pay the interest on the war debt? I am very much reminded of something that was said by Dean Swift, who was once taken for a walk round Dublin and saw a new building being put up. He asked what it was, and he was told, "This is a powder magazine." He said:
Behold the proof of Irish wit,
Here Irish wit is seen,
When nothing's left that's worth defence,
They build a magazine.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Astor: I rise with considerable diffidence as a member of that unsocial anti much-abused class of people, bachelors; but I would like to answer the claim of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) that women in public life are the cause of smaller families, by saying that I am one of a family of six. I hope the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to-day will convey the purport of this Debate to all his colleagues, because the facts that have been brought out surely affect all the partners, and should be thought of in all legislative measures, all administrative Acts, all capital expenditure, all long-term policy, and all strategic commitments. We are faced with the problem of a country with more miles of frontier per head to defend, more miles of trade routes per head to defend, more pounds of debt per head to bear and more old age pensioners in relation to the young. Surely every Government Department should have these facts constantly in mind in all the planning that is done for the future.
The cause of diminishing population has been summed up by a gentleman who, I think, has provided the brief of

almost everybody who has spoken in this Debate, Professor Carr-Saunders, when he said that parents have gone on strike because of the neglect of their special problems. In the past the parent of a large family has always been in an inferior economic position compared with the bachelor or the parent of a very small family, and as soon as the power to regulate families was put in the hands of parents, they at once tried to give themselves the advantages which they could not have before. So respected a figure as Queen Victoria wrote in 1841 to her uncle:
I think, dearest Uncle, you cannot really wish me to be the maman d'une nombreuse famille, for I think you will see with me the great inconvenience a large family would be to us all, particularly to the country, independent of the hardships and inconveniences to myself: men never think, at least seldom think, what a hard task it is for us women to go through this very often.
The words "very often" are underlined. If Queen Victoria felt that, it is not surprising that women for the last century have begun to have the same feeling, that if they had a large family they were not getting a square economic deal. There has been widespread ignorance of the effect these smaller families would have on the future of this country, but I would like to reply to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) that emigration has very seldom been a cause in changing the curve of population in the country from which the emigrants have gone. It is interesting to note that about 10 years ago, when the population problem of Japan first became acute, Japanese thinkers thought that in emigration would lie a solution of their population problem; but the researches of Japanese statisticians and scientists proved that very few countries, except possibly Ireland, have had their population affected by people going out, and as fast as emigrants went out they were replaced by births.
Nor can it be proved that poverty has been a cause of lower births. In the report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas it is stated that the birth rate in those areas is considerably higher than the birth rate for the whole of England. For the whole of England the natural increase is 2.7 and in Durham it is 5.7. If we are to deal with these problems we must look for quality in the coming generation. To some extent the question of numbers has passed our control. To


some extent the population is bound to decline, but when we know that of the children going into elementary schools, 16 per cent. suffer from remediable defects and that of the children who have attended nursery schools, even those who had original disabilities, only 7 per cent. suffer from such remediable defects, we can see that the enthusiasts for nursery schools are not guided by sentiment alone but by hard facts, in desiring that those schools should be universal.
Similarly we feel that the problem of slum schools, where the children cannot get proper nourishment, proper fresh air or a proper environment, has to be tackled and tackled soon. When we realise that 60 per cent. of those who present themselves as recruits for the British Army are turned down, while in Germany the figure is only 16 per cent., we see that the situation cannot be regarded with complacency. It is true that there is conscription in Germany, and that the prospective recruits in this country may be drawn from the poorer classes, and also that our standards may be a little higher than those of Germany. All that, however, does not explain away the alarming disparity in the figures.
The only scientific developments which seem to be within sight are inventions to make maternity painless, and although I understand that in Russia there have been experiments in the production of rats out of test-tubes by epigenesis, the possibility that even in the "brave new world" this method can be applied to human beings, is still far beyond the range of present-day science. The level of population must govern our whole policy. It means that we have to be extraordinarily cautious in our commitments as regards war, that we must do all we can to avoid any adventurous policies which will land us in trouble. We have to realise that with a smaller share of the world's population, we ought to share more the benefits of the control of the world's surface which is ours at present, whether by tariff changes, or actual political redistribution. We have to lend sympathetic consideration to the one real problem of over-population in the world, the problem of Japan. With Britain's population declining, the Dominions and the rest of the Empire may have to take on a greater share of the burden of their own defence. We must

see that the public debt is not piled up to be a load on the diminished population of the future. We must undertake no capital expenditure which is unsuitable to a country with a declining population.
As regards numbers, one thing is clear, that we have to accept birth control as a fact. If we try to forbid it, we shall have the same experience as Italy. The prohibition of birth control is a form of prohibition which cannot be enforced. It will arouse a defensive reaction among the people who desire to practise it. The hon. Member for Barnstaple referred to the effect of taxation. I was speaking recently to a doctor with a large general practice, who told me that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew the privilege of educational trusts in the last Budget, a number of his patients had asked him how they could limit their families, because, as result of that change, they were unable to provide for the education of further children. He said he had been staggered by the number who came to him with that request since the last Budget, and that what the Chancellor had given with one hand he had taken away with the other. Although educational trusts may have been abused, I think they should be allowed to a limited and reasonable extent.
On the question of family allowances the Government ought to set an example to other employers. There are allowances to men serving in the Army and I think also in the Air Force and there should be a similar system in the Navy. There has been prejudice among elderly officers against young married officers, but it should be announced by all Government Departments that no bar will be placed in the way of the marriage of their employés, however young. In many regiments there is an unofficial but quite effective bar against married subalterns. I know a case of a subaltern in a certain regiment who was about to get married and was asked whether when he got married he would be able to continue to hunt and play polo as he had done previously. He said he could not do so, and he left that regiment. It should be impressed on all colonels of regiments that no bar is to be placed in the way of subalterns getting married.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Tell us about the private soldier now.

Mr. Astor: I was mentioning a particular case which came to my notice, but the same thing applies to all classes.

Mr. Broad: In the banks there is a similar bar.

Mr. Astor: I agree, and I say that the Bank of England ought to set an example and bring pressure to bear on the other banks, and if necessary the Government ought to introduce a condition into contracts against any bar on marriage. The. German system of allowances to young married couples to enable them to set up house ought to be carefully examined, but I do not think it is possible to proceed by economic remedies alone. We cannot bribe parents to have children if the desire is not there.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Example is better than precept.

Mr. Astor: I can only say that in spite of my mother being in public life, I have had a very fine example in my own family. It is very important that the facts of the situation should be made known. They are not generally known. It is not generally known, for instance, that the replacement of our population is no longer automatic. We must give people the knowledge that it a public duty to have families of a reasonable size. If people are to have larger families they require to feel confidence. One of the ways in which we can build up confidence is not only by seeking peace and ensuring it, not only by giving economic advantages, but by the avoidance of extreme policies. Extreme policies destroy confidence in the future of the country, and that remark applies to both parties. I am sure that if the facts were known, if the country were made to realise the need for families of reasonable size and of high quality, there would be an improvement in the situation. I hope that the Government will accept the proposal for a full inquiry not only because of the facts which such an inquiry will elicit, but also because of the valuable publicity which it will give to the subject. The more it is known, the more the thinking part of the population, the newspaper readers, realise the facts, and the more they devote their attention to the question, the sooner shall we see a remedy for the present deplorable situation.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I want to say at the very beginning that we hope very much that the Government will find it possible to accept the Motion, at any rate so far as the reference to an inquiry is concerned. We may have our differing points of view as to why this problem has arisen, but we can agree that there is a problem and that, therefore, it is an appropriate matter for the Government to inquire into. We have had this evening a very remarkable series of speeches on this Motion. I very much enjoyed the first four speeches from the other side of the House and those from this side. I observe that the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland), who moved the Motion, placed first in importance, in connection with this demand, the danger to the maintenance of the British Empire, and then the economic well-being of the nation. Why he should have put them in that order, I do not know. I should have thought that the well-being of our own country should have come first. However, let me follow his order and say a word or two first on the future well-being of the Empire.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not agree with me—I know that in advance—but I am not quite sure that it is our first duty to consider the British Empire in this connection. I venture to say that, so far as the resources of what is known as the British Empire, but what we prefer to call the British Commonwealth of Nations, are concerned, we consider that our first duty is to encourage the people who are indigenous to those areas to develop those areas. We do not regard these vast territories as areas that are primarily there for receiving our surplus population, if we have one. Rather do we regard it as our bounden duty to encourage those people, as far as we can, to develop their own faculties and their own abilities to such a degree that they will be able to produce from those countries as much material for themselves as they require and as much also as the rest of the world requires. I understand that that is agreed to by hon. Members opposite, so that one part of the Labour party's policy is accepted at any rate.
Now I will turn to the internal problem, and here, I think, we must all agree that there is one aspect of it that is obvious to everybody. Whatever the cause may


be, this decline in the child population of our country is the result of conscious and deliberate action. It is plain that there is a deliberate and sustained endeavour on the part of parents to limit their families to a reasonable number. As to why they do that we may perhaps differ, but the fact that they do it is, I believe, beyond dispute. I believe that it arises in the main from a new conception which people are attaining of the responsibilities of parenthood. It may be stated in terms of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). He may say that in his view it is due to the pursuit of a larger measure of leisure or of luxury, but I will put it in this way: Men and women, especially since the War, are determined that their children shall enjoy a higher standard of living than was the case with their parents and with themselves when they were children.
The right of the child has become a greater element in the thoughts of parents than it has ever been before, and I believe that, so far, that is all to the good. The right of the child can only be safeguarded by the conditions under which the parents are called upon to live, for, after all, it is we as parents who determine what opportunities our children shall have, and to that end we do what we think is good for our children. I agree that to enable parents to do better for their children it is not much use having recourse to these finicky little financial adjustments here and there. So far as the Measure involved in last year's Budget went, it was to the good, and parents cordially welcomed it, but I think we have to look at it much more fundamentally than that. I was interested in the reasons which the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) gave. He recited a whole list, but, curiously enough, in the whole list of causes which seemed to him to lead parents to avoid having more than a certain number of children he altogether avoided mentioning war. I do not know why, because I assure him he is overlooking what I consider to be a very important factor in this connection. The effect of the last War undoubtedly was to compel parents, or at any rate to induce them, to say to themselves, "Is it worth while producing children so that they may become cannon fodder?" to use a common expression. The horrors of war, the devastation

caused by war, simply scare parents and make them feel that they will not be justified in bringing children into the world if that is to be their inevitable destiny, and I believe that that factor plays a big part in this matter.
I believe that we should never have heard a speech like that of the hon. Member opposite or indeed from any Conservative Member 30 years ago. I was astounded to hear the Seconder of the Motion say some of the things which he did say. It is not that I was disturbed or in any way hurt; indeed, I was entirely charmed by some of the things that he was saying. For instance, it was a delightful thing to hear an hon. Member opposite, on the eve of the introduction of a Factories Bill, urge upon the Government which he supports that they should introduce into that Factories Bill the Washington Convention proposals whereby there should be ante-natal provision for women and that they should be guaranteed so much per week for at least six weeks before the birth of their child. That is most excellent, and I almost felt like offering a card of membership in the Labour party to the hon. Member.

Mr. Sandys: There is no monopoly in the Labour party of care or concern as to the health of mothers.

Mr. Jones: No, but when we do discover some supporters we are glad to welcome them. The second point which the hon. Member made was interference with the mother's working capacity, and again, to my great delight, nursery schools and creches for children. We had an argument about that last week, and I will not enter into it again, but in this respect also he is in agreement with something which the Labour party has popularised. The third point is the most important. It concerns the cost of bringing up children, and the hon. Member devoted a considerable amount of time to the subject. I agree with all he said about the cost of housing and the cost of feeding and clothing children. May I say to the hon. Member and to the Minister who will follow me, that the Government themselves are steadily adding to this burden year after year? This steady effort to raise the cost of commodities is having an unfortunate consequence in many working-class homes.
It is astounding to me how lower middle-class people in and around


London are able to make ends meet at all having regard to the tremendous proportion which the element of rent represents of their expenditure. I live in a suburb where there have been built large numbers of houses which cost between £1,200 and £1,500. A person who buys one of these houses has to put £200 or £300 down and borrow £1,000. He has to pay 5 per cent. at least, which means £50 a year for interest alone. He has to pay another £50 per year for 20 years for repayments, and another £20 at least for rates and taxes. He thus has to pay £120 a year without beginning to live at all. I have often wondered where in the world these people earn their living. Where do they earn sufficient to pay £120 for a house and yet have sufficient margin to pay for their ordinary needs? It is a problem I have not understood, and I do not know what the answer is. Most of these people are clerks earning £250 or £300 a year, and nearly half their earnings go to provide housing accommodation. It is an impossible proposition, and inevitably they must say that they cannot afford children.

Sir F. Fremantle: They take lodgers very often.

Mr. Jones: They may do, and in that case the wife must remain at home. I am told that some of these wives go out to work, and thus, again, the tendency is to avoid having families. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) referred to education. I have two children, one of whom goes to an elementary school, and for me in the suburbs of London it is a terrible proposition to find out where I can get a school for my elder child where the fees are within a range that I can meet. Fees  12, 16 and 20 guineas per term are an awful proposition for people with modest incomes, and yet the number of schools available with lower fees are very few. The result is that people with a smaller income than mine—and I can scarcely conceive that there are many with less than mine—must have a terrible proposition to face. In view of this expense there is also a tendency for people to say, "No children." I was astounded, but none the less encouraged, to hear the hon. Gentleman actually say that the problem of fees in schools and the social snobbery in the realm of education in the suburbs had induced him to urge that the time was coming when the State should compel all

children to go to State schools. When he introduces a Motion to that effect, I hope he will give me notice, and I shall be here to back him up.
What does this problem compel us to do? There is not one side of our social life which is not involved in it. Take the case of my own area in South Wales. You are moving tens of thousands of youngsters from that area to various areas in London. We are left with very small children or very old people. The development of modern industry around London is drawing thousands from other areas, leaving them comparatively depopulated. That will have an enormous effect on the future development of industry. If the figures the hon. Gentleman gave the House are correct, in 20 years from now the problem will he infinitely more complex than it is at the present moment. In another 20 years I do not know what the situation will be.
In the long run this problem is one of planning. You cannot go on developing industry higgledy-piggledy anywhere and everywhere regardless of where the populaton is or of whether there are adequate population resources. Private people may be interested in the problem, as are Members of both parties, and may have their solutions, but they have not the resources of information at their disposal. The only people who could guide employers adequately in this matter are the Government. It is the Government alone who have the resources, and it is the Government's job to face up to this question now in good time. In another generation the problem of controlling industry will be so completely different that unless we tackle it now, in good time, we shall be caught by a situation in which we shall not be able to improvise ways and means of meeting it. We support this Motion to-night. It is not necessary that we should agree with all the analyses of the causes, nor with some of the solutions and remedies, which supporters of it have put forward, but that there is a case for inquiry we are abundantly convinced, and we shall go into the Lobby in support of the Motion.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: I think I owe you, Mr. Speaker, and the House an apology for your having to listen to me once again. It seems to me that I have been address-


ing the House much too often in the course of the last two days.

Mr. Paling: You sound like it.

Mr. Hudson: The House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) for having raised this subject. I certainly owe him a debt of gratitude, because it has involved me in trying to make myself acquainted with a subject about which I previously knew nothing. I imagine that the hon. Member himself was also in that state a short while ago, and I hope he will not take offence if I suggest that some of the statements he has made show that he is still in that state. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) rightly said, this is a question on which only the Government, with all its resources, can really have adequate information. It is a subject, too, which the Government, or at least the appropriate Department, the Registrar-General's, have been studying for some considerable time, and I should like to say a word or two on the results of that study so far as they have gone at present. I would interpose here to say that we propose to accept the Motion and to make an investigation, or, perhaps I should say, continue our investigation.
Before anything can be done to deal with the problems which have been raised it is necessary to know what are the facts. A great deal of speculation on the subject has been undertaken in the last few years by experts. The results have been published and have been quoted in many of the statements we have heard to-night. The danger of those calculations lies in the fact that the ordinary member of the public who reads them, and makes use of them subsequently in discussion, very seldom takes the trouble, or knows enough, to take account of the safeguards which the authors of those calculations would be the first to say are essential before one can make use of the results of their calculations. It is, therefore, with no desire to disparage any of these experts that I quote a description of their results which I came across the other day and which may possibly amuse and interest the House. They are described as:
Purely mathematical exercises, lacking all touch with reality except so far as the basic

assumptions, hypothetically adopted, happen to coincide with the unascertainable truth.
That very accurately describes, I am afraid, many of the figures which have been given by hon. Members in the Debate. Some Members have said the birth rate in this country has been steadily declining. They have painted appalling pictures. The interesting fact is that since 1933, for the first time in our history, the birth rate in this country has remained stable for four years in succession, and has not continued to fall. The actual birth rate for the last two years has, in fact, shown a slight rise. Many hon. Members in the course of the Debate suggested that contraceptive methods were the cause of the decline, but the hon. Member for King's Norton was wise enough not to make that statement. He quite rightly said that contraceptive methods were the means and not the cause of the declining birth rate. There is all the distinction in the world between those two things.
Of course, there is implicit in this Motion the idea that there is, in any country, and in this country, an optimum population. Before you decide whether that is correct, I submit that you have first of all to decide what you regard as your optimum. That is a question of very great difficulty, upon which opinions differ. Some people would say that the optimum is such as will provide additional population for the Dominions, and others that it is such as will provide the largest number of adults of middle-age for possible war. Other people would say that the optimum was to provide the largest number of juveniles to go into industry. You get almost innumerable definitions of "optimum." The hon. Member who moved the Motion asked why people were having fewer children to-day than at any time in the past. That goes to the root of the whole matter. I am not admitting that they are having fewer children than at any time in the past, because the figures show that there appears, at the present moment, to be a check. It is a matter for detailed investigation. Some hon. Members have suggested that the fall in the birth rate has something to do with economic conditions. That again is a matter on which opinions differ and about which, as far as I know, there is no definite information at present on which we can form a judgment. There are only vague indications.
A very interesting speech was made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad). I thoroughly agreed with the first portion of it, but he went on to suggest that the reduction in the birth rate was due to the action of the Government in decontrolling houses. It cannot possibly be so, because, according to the figures to which I have just referred, the major reduction in the birth rate took place when houses were not decontrolled, and it is only during the last few years, when houses have been decontrolled, that the rate has tended to become stable. I do not know where he obtained the figures which he gave to the House.

Mr. Broad: I got them from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), who gave them earlier in the Debate.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member used them to show, so far as I understood him, that the Russian population is increasing faster because of the improved conditions in Russia. I asked an hon. and learned Member on the Front Bench opposite to do me a sum while the hon. Member was speaking, and he tells me that at the rate referred to by the hon. Member the Russian population is doubling now every 30 or 40 years. When I was in Russia before the War, at our Embassy, under conditions which I assume the hon. Member for Edmonton thinks were much worse than they are now, the population of Russia was doubling itself every 20 years. That seems to dispose of that argument. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) said that the fear of war was one of the factors, but again let us look at the results for the last few years since the War. The years up to, say, 1929 or 1930, when the whole country thought that, with the League of Nations, the risk of war was appreciably lessened, were the years when there was a decline in the birth rate, while during the last four years, when everyone has known, or at any rate believed, the risk of war to have been greater than it was earlier, there has been a slackening off in that decline. That disposes of his argument also. I only say this in order to show how difficult it is to reach any considered opinion with the information that we have at our disposal. Some hon. Members have mentioned maternal mortality as one of the causes of the decreasing birth rate. I think that one

of them was the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. R. Acland), who talked about the reproduction rate. I recognise there the jargon of the experts—

Sir F. Fremantle: The Registrar-General uses that term.

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps he has been contaminated by bad company. Anyhow, I have no doubt that some believe that the recent propaganda in favour of the maternity services has resulted in decreasing the birth rate, by inducing a fear of confinement among the mothers of this country. But, looking at the real effects on the population, I think it will be agreed that the net result so far as actual maternal mortality is concerned is very small, because one finds that, out of 1,335, which I believe is the average death rate per 100,000 among women, only 16 deaths were the result of pregnancy and childbirth—obviously a very small proportion indeed, which cannot have any material effect in reducing the birth rate. It is much more likely to be a psychological factor, to which several hon. Members have referred.
The same thing applies to housing. It has been suggested, in the course of the Debate, that the lack of housing has had a serious effect in reducing the birth rate. So far as rural housing is concerned, I think that that is probably true, because the young couples in the country among the agricultural population expect, quite rightly in my opinion, a much higher standard of comfort and amenity in their houses—they know from the cinema and so forth what is possible—and they expect a much higher standard than that which was vouchsafed to their parents. They look around in the country to-day and see the cottages in which their fathers and mothers lived, and I think it is quite possible that the badness of rural housing at present may have a serious effect on the birth rate in the country. It is one of the factors, and that is why we have been so persistent in endeavouring to urge rural authorities both to undertake schemes for the elimination of slums and overcrowding in the country, and also to make use of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts and to recondition properties and bring them up to a reasonable modern standard wherever that is possible.
I have put forward these various considerations merely to show the complexity of the problem. I agree with Members who have talked about birth control up to this point, that the advance of knowledge introduces for the first time a new element into the situation to this extent, that it makes what was previously accidental now definitely within the compass of voluntary effort, namely the limitation of families. But that does not really solve the problem. We have still to decide whether or not there is any economic urge to reduce families and whether there is any possibility of altering that urge. It is quite useless, in our opinion, to discuss what is the optimum population unless you can be reasonably certain that you can take some steps which will affect the population one way or the other. It is no use talking about the idea of an optimum population unless you are certain that you can take steps to secure it.
The hon. Member for King's Norton spoke about the age-grouping of the population. He is quite right, and that is one of the most outstanding characteristics of our population. We have a very large preponderance of persons in the prime of life at present. That is due to the fact that at some time we had an excess of births, which must inevitably be followed by a time when we shall have an excess of an older age group. The extent to which that is the case will be realised when I point out that the present adult population is the result of years when the number of births per annum was around 900,000. The juvenile population to-day are sprung from years when the birth rate was between 500,000 and 600,000 per annum, and the number of old people is also the result of a time when the birth rate was between 500,000 and 600,000. Therefore the House will see the reason for this enormous bulge in the centre.
Hon. Members are quite right in saying it is beyond the bounds of possibility, if you think it is wrong, to alter it now. Whether or not it is a good thing is a matter of opinion. We have not at present sufficient information to be able to say with certainty, or even with probability, what the results over a long period are going to be. It is sufficient for our immediate purpose to see what

the population of the country is likely to be at the end of 20 years. Let hon. Members cast their imagination back to 100 years ago and imagine what were the estimates of the statisticians of 1836, with the knowledge that they then had of the trend of population, what were the estimates of the statisticians of 1836 of what the population would be to-day. Imagine how wide of the mark they must have been. I think the estimates that are being made to-day by certain statisticians who have been quoted are quite possibly equally wide of the mark. That is why we welcome the Debate. We do not propose to set an inquiry on foot, because the subject is continuously under inquiry in my Department. We propose to intensify that inquiry. We shall welcome any assistance, but we think it is essentially a matter for the Government and not for outside societies.
It is clear that this intense investigation may lead to conclusions which will be of interest. My final suggestion is that hon. Members who raised this question spoke at some disadvantage—two of the most powerful speeches were delivered by bachelors. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) would, I think, have been much better qualified to deal with this question.

Mr. Cartland: How far is this inquiry to go? I know that it is going on at the moment, but is it to be extended, and what are to be the terms of reference of this particular inquiry?

Mr. Hudson: I do not think that we have got to the stage yet of drawing up terms of reference, but I have indicated sufficiently clearly to-night the type of problem which really faces the country and the Government, and we hope that the inquiry which we have set on foot will obtain sufficient information to indicate what the policy should be.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Will it be a Departmental inquiry?

Mr. Hudson: indicated assent.

Mr. Cartland: Will it be possible for the gentlemen who are carrying out the investigation to issue an interim report, or, at any rate, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that in the lifetime of this Government we shall have an interim report?

Mr. Hudson: I tried to cover that point by saying that I could not give at this stage any pledge, but I am certain that an inquiry of this nature will produce results to justify itself.

Mr. Sandys: While my hon. Friend indicated that he will accept the Motion, is it intended to produce a report which will be made available to hon. Members?

Mr. Hudson: I cannot go further than I have said.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I have listened very intently practically to all the speeches, although I am sorry I was not present all the time when the Mover of the Motion was speaking. He spoke as a bachelor, and two or three other bachelors have spoken, but I am going to speak from experience, and not from theory. I hold the record in this House at the present time for getting more bounties for triplets on behalf of constituents in my division than anyone else in this House. The week before the ex-King abdicated I obtained a bounty, and I said, "I hope he does not leave before I get this bounty." The present King had scarcely come to the Throne 10 minutes when they sent along to me and said, "Can you, George, do the same for me?" And we landed another set of triplets again last week.
I have found in going up and down the country for a good number of years that men and women, who had been members of large families when they were boys and girls, have taken jolly good care not to have large families themselves. You will find that sort of thing all round the country. I am one of a family of 10, and there is nobody in that family who has more than three children. Why? It is not from the theoretical standpoint, but from the standpoint of having had to live almost at starvation level. It is no use the hon. Member opposite, a bachelor, telling us how to go on. I was starved when I was a lad, and I was determined that when I grew up to manhood and married my children should not be starved in the way that I was. Hon. Members opposite may laugh at that idea, but that is the practical side of life. That is the reason why among the working classes there are smaller families than when we were born. It is because of economic insecurity. If the people of to-day

had economic security there would not be much necessity for any hon. Member to put a Motion of this kind on the Order Paper.
The Motion asks for an inquiry. If an inquiry is to be held, I hope that two or three practical working women and practical working men will be on the committee of inquiry, and they will be able to tell you something. The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) is smiling. Let me tell him that to-day, especially during the last 10 years, since the miners' strike of 1926, when a miner's wife knows she is going to have a baby, the neighbours almost draw the blinds of their houses, because they know to what a hardship the baby is coming. Instead of there being joy in the homes of the working classes when a baby is coming, there is sorrow and misery, because they know they have not the wherewithal to face the situation and give a welcome to the baby. When an inquiry is made I hope that one definite side of it will look into the economic circumstances.
I should like to quote a few figures from Mrs. Baldwin's committee, which show that poverty is the primary cause of high infantile mortality and the high maternal death rate. These are not figures which are got together by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the Communists; they are the figures got together by Mrs. Baldwin's committee, of which Lady Rhys Williams is the secretary. Comparative death rates are shown in actual numbers. The infantile death rates quoted are for seven years from 1927 to 1933, and the maternal mortality rate from 1928 to 1934, and they cover comparative populations of 6,000,000. They deal with the figures respecting 6,000,000 people in London and Middlesex, 6,000,000 in five coal mining counties and 6,000,000 in seven ports in distressed areas. The coal mining counties are Durham, Glamorgan, Monmouth, Northumberland and the West Riding of Yorkshire and the seven ports are Birkenhead, Cardiff, Hull, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sunderland and Swansea. The number of infant deaths in seven years in the distressed areas was 64,052 and the infantile deaths in London and Middlesex covering the same amount of population was 38,629, or a less number of infantile deaths to the same amount of population, of 25,423. Then we are told by hon. Members that economic circumstances


have nothing whatever to do with infantile mortality. Those are the figures of Mrs. Baldwin's committee.
Take maternal mortality. There is a fear, where a woman is starved while she is carrying a baby, that she will not have strength to deliver it. That is proved by this document. The deaths in these coal mining counties was 3,965, and the deaths in London and Middlesex 2,206, or an increase of 1,759 for the same population. I am inclined to be a little ironical when I hear hon. Members opposite say, "We must make an inquiry into this matter and find out about the declining birth rate." The reasons for the decline in the birth rate is the fact that hon. Members went through that door there and voted for the means test—both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion and the hon. Member for Fulham East (Mr. Astor). They voted for the means test to keep down the food of these women. It is no use their shedding crocodile tears—

Mr. Astor: The hon. Member attributes it all to the means test. How then does he explain the fact that the birth rate has improved in the last three years during which the means test has been in operation, and, in the second place, how does he explain the fact that the birth rate in the distressed areas is higher than in the rest of the country?

Mr. Griffiths: The death rate in these areas has increased—not decreased. If you save the children it will help you to keep the birth rate right. The death rate in those areas is higher than it would have been if there had not been a means test. Some hon. Members have expressed pleasure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the rebate for children. When I went home one of my friends said to me, "It does not make any difference, George, to me, because I am paying nowt now." I should like to see the collier who is paying Income Tax. He has to have £240, and one youngster. There is an allowance for a man and his wife of £180 and £60 for the first youngster; and our men have been getting an average wage of about £129 per annum. The Parliamentary Secretary said he was going to make an intensive inquiry. The more intensive it

is and the sooner we get a report the sooner there will be a better hope of getting the means test wiped away.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Markham: I should like to re-echo the last sentence of the hon. Member. I want to deal with what the Minister has said. I was considerably disappointed with the Minister's reply. He might have given us some information on the terms of reference of this committee, how fast it is going to work, and why things have been so lax that such a committee is necessary. The first point it should tackle is the question of optimum population. It is no answer to tell the House that you can have several optima and anyone can choose the one that best suits his reasoning. The committee should be instructed to give us an idea of what is the best optimum from the point of view of the greatest good for the greatest number; what is the maximum population—the maximum optimum—that this country can bear; and what is the minimum with which it can still retain its share of world markets. Secondly, such an inquiry should investigate the birth rate and the infantile mortality rate by what may be termed social grades, or income grades. There is a great deal of work that requires to be done there, and in my opinion it could not be done by a Departmental Committee. There should be an inter-Departmental Committee, or for preference a Select Committee, bringing together the best available knowledge in the country.
There is a third point that the committee should take into consideration—the efforts that have been made in foreign countries to increase the birth rate, with special consideration of whether those efforts have been successful or not. Finally, the committee might also go further into the question of infantile mortality, as it affects the population of this country, than would appear to be indicated by the present action of the Ministry of Health. So long as the infantile mortality rate is nearly twice as high as it is in New Zealand, the Netherlands or Iceland, this country should be ashamed of itself as a civilised force. The shockingly high rate in this country should be one of the main causes of this inquiry. If the inquiry is restricted to a Departmental Committee it will not take us as far or as fast as an inter-Departmental Com-


mittee or a Select Committee. I strongly urge the Minister to set up a Select Committee, bringing in representatives of the Dominions Office, to keep us informed on questions of migration, representatives of the Treasury and of the Ministry of Health, and generally tapping the best knowledge that we have. The question has been most ably put in the House and I say with deep regret, because I have personal admiration for the Minister, that the reply, was most disappointing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House is of opinion that the tendency of the population to decline may well constitute a danger to the maintenance of the British Empire and to the economic well-being of the nation, and requests His Majesty's Government to institute an inquiry into and report upon the problem and its social and economic consequences and to make recommendations in regard thereto.

AFFORESTATION (SPECIAL AREAS).

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I make no apology for keeping hon. Members here late to-night, and indeed I should be lacking in my duty not only to my own constituents, but to the constituents of the Special Areas, if I did not draw the attention of the House to the disgraceful way in which they have been treated as far as afforestation is concerned. The problem of the Special Areas is engaging the attention of the Government. The only way they have offered up to the present for solving it is by transference, and the only transference to which they have referred is that of transferring our young people from the Special Areas to round about London. We have to educate those young people and bring them up to manhood, and after we have spent very much money in so doing, all of it increasing our rates, we have to send them to the more prosperous areas, which are low-rated. We have to send men ready-made from the North and from Wales, and we object to that.
I would like to remind the Government that transference is not a one-way scheme. It is not only possible to transfer men to industry, but possible, where there is the

will to do it, to transfer industry to men. The Government have had a chance of transferring industry to men in this matter of afforestation. We have been told by the Government that they could not exert any compulsion with regard to the location of industry, but neither have they given any compassion or consideration to the people in the distressed areas. As far as afforestation is concerned, we have an abundance of acres in the North of England and in Wales, and over a year ago, Sir Malcolm Stewart, in his first report, recommended the Government to take the question into consideration. The Forestry Commissioners were asked to assist the Government and they promised to plant 200,000 extra acres in or near the Special Areas.

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): In ten years.

Mr. Sexton: So far that pledge has been practically an unredeemed pledge. I attended a conference on forestry and afforestation in Newcastle last April, and at that conference various opinions were expressed, but we heard nothing from the landowners. On 19th May, 1936, I asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) the following question:
Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many unemployed have been set to work on this scheme?
The reply was:
I am afraid that I cannot answer that question, but the number must be considerable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1936; col. 994, Vol. 312.]
On 26th May, 1936, I asked the following question:
How many unemployed persons in the Special Areas have been engaged on the additional planting scheme outlined at the recent conference at Newcastle-on-Tyne?
and I received this reply from the hon. and gallant Gentleman:
None have been engaged on the planting scheme referred to, as the planting season does not begin until November, but draining and fencing will be undertaken as soon as possession has been secured of new land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1936; cols. 1832–33, Vol. 312.]
Again, on 17th November, 1936, when the planting season should have started, I asked a question and I received a reply from the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) on behalf of the Forestry Commissioners. I asked


how many men had been engaged from the distressed or Special Areas, and I received the numbers, which were 15 in the North of England and 17 in South Wales, and on that occasion, of course, the North of England did not include Durham.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.
Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]

Mr. Sexton: A week ago I asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye how many men had been engaged from the Special Areas. The answer was that in South Wales the number was 35 and in the North of England 17, and in Durham none. I do not know whether the Special Areas outside Durham are satisfied with that number. They are able to speak for themselves, but I am speaking for Durham County when I say that we are deeply dissatisfied with the disgraceful condition of the countryside, considering the wonderful land there and the wonderful people there who are eating their hearts out in idleness. This part of Durham is one of the hardest-hit districts in the country. There are villages in my constituency with 50 per cent. or more unemployed. It is true that the numbers are not large—in some cases only a couple of hundred—but even 200 people in the case of a country village is an alarmingly high figure. It is not that we have not the right kind of land. I saw in some of the papers last week, after I had asked the question on this subject, a sort of apology to the effect that the land was too near the pits and was affected by smoke and fumes. I live in a district which is at least 20 miles from the nearest pit and three or four of the largest sanatoria in the country have been placed there on account of the clear bracing atmosphere. Not only is the air clear, but the land will grow the finest trees to be seen anywhere. Thousands of trees were cut down there during the War and we have fine examples not only of coniferous trees, but of oak, ash, beech, birch, and elm, which can be matched against any produced in the South or Midlands.
At the conference in Newcastle-on-Tyne we were told that mountain and heath land was required. That is exactly

the sort of land which is to be found in my constituency. I do not say it is all land which can be planted, but at least 200,000 acres could usefully be planted with the kind of trees we want, yet in Durham County not a single tree has been planted under this scheme, not a man has been engaged and not a pound has been spent. I understand the Government made a grant of £200,000 this year towards this extra scheme. We hear a lot in this House about the wide open spaces of the Empire. If hon. Members come to my division they will find that there are wide open spaces there and that it is not necessary to send people out to the Colonies to find such spaces. We have the land there and we have the men, and we want some of this money. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) has told us about wide open spaces in Australia which are all scrub land, overgrown with prickly pear. We have none of that in Durham. Our land is ready and waiting. The labour is there and I want to know why Durham has been excluded.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said a great deal has been done in neighbouring counties, which would give relief in Durham. But over a year has gone, and no relief has come to the county of Durham. Later on, in answer to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), he said:
The Forestry Commissioners are under an obligation to arrange special afforestation schemes for the Special Areas, of which the county of Durham forms a part. There is no obligation to select individual counties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1937; col. 1423, Vol. 319.]
I think there should be no obligation to neglect individual counties, and Durham County has been sadly neglected. The people of South-West Durham are aching in heart and wondering how this wonderful prosperity about which we hear is coming to them. When I go down to my constituency and talk about this wonderful prosperity that I hear of from the Government, they say, "Where is the prosperity? We have seen none of it. We have partaken of none of it." The type of men that you get in these districts is the very type that the Forestry Commission want. They are hardy men, hardy dalesmen, the South-West Durham miners, the very build for the job. They are used to it; every man of them is used almost to afforestation itself. They are


used to horticulture, digging and trenching, and so on, and it is high time that something was done for them. They have asked for long enough. I have had meeting after meeting and suggested afforestation to them, and when I come here and ask about it, I find that nothing has been done in Durham County.
If you look at Durham, you will find that nearly all the local councils are run by Socialist majorities; on the county council we have had a Socialist majority for 12 years; and when you look at the Parliamentary representation of the administrative county of Durham, you will see that we have a 100 per cent. Socialist membership of this House. We are beginning to think that the people of Durham are being penalised for their politics, and the whole business, to my mind, wants fairly investigating by the Government or somebody else. We are not satisfied to be penalised for our politics. There is no chance of getting us to come to the political penitents' form, and if they want to get us there, the best way is not to ignore us. The people in my division are ground down. The Government, like the mills of God, "grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small," and they have got the South-West Durham people "ground exceeding small." It is time that this shameful neglect, so far as Durham is concerned, was seen to. In conclusion, I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Member how he reconciles the figures that he gave to me last May, and what has happened to the considerable number who were engaged one week and dropped the next. Does he think that 35 people in South Wales, 17 in Northumberland, and none in Durham make a satisfactory response to the Government when they ask the Forestry Commission to take into consideration and to help the Special Areas in working afforestation schemes?

11.9 p.m.

Sir G. Courthope: I may owe you, Sir, and the Members of this House an apology, because of an answer which I gave to a question last week, for keeping you here late to-night, but I am clear that the Commissioners whom I represent owe no apology whatever to the constituency of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) or to the county of Durham. His complaint is based on an entire misconception of the

facts. Let me explain the position. It was explained about a year ago, or rather less, when the Treasury first authorised the expenditure of additional money on special forestry schemes for the Special Areas. It was then explained quite clearly that it would be necessary, not only to find and acquire land, not only to prepare and plant nurseries, but first of all to find and collect seed in the remote parts of the world where the necessary varieties of seed are to be found and to sow it in our seed beds. It was clearly explained that by the time we obtained the seed, from three or four years at least must elapse before the young plants were-ready for planting out in the plantations. Those who are familiar with forestry operations know these facts, but I explained them in the House to those who might not know them.
The Forestry Commission were so confident that the scheme that we had already submitted to the Government in order to assist the Special Areas would be approved to some extent—it was, in fact, approved entirely—that we made arrangements for the collection and purchase of seed before we got authority last February to spend £200,000 this year and to plant 200,000 acres in 10 years. We obtained the seed and started work on the necessary extension of nurseries in order to raise the plants. The seed was sown in the spring of last year, within a comparatively few weeks of the Treasury authority for the expenditure.

Mr. Lawson: It is not long since heard the hon. and gallant Member ex plain to the House that they had disposed of a great surplus of young trees, and there was quite a hue and cry about it. It was about 1,000,000 trees.

Sir G. Courthope: It was more than that. At the time of the May Report, the normal programme of planting of the Forestry Commission, which had previously been approved by Parliament, and for which preparation was made by the growing of plants in the nurseries, was cut down severely. We found ourselves with 50,000,000 surplus plants in our nurseries—I mean little plants a few inches high. Our programme was cut down as the result of the May Report, and we had these alternatives. If we had thrown these surplus seedlings on the market for what they would fetch, every professional nurseryman would have gone


into bankruptcy. They had the stocks which the normal demand of the country could absorb. After consideration, and after arranging that a certain quantity of the surplus stocks should be taken over and planted by local authorities in catchment areas in connection with water schemes, we decided that the only proper and economical course was to destroy the balance. We actual destroyed about 50,000,000 young plants. If the May Report had not been made these young plants would have been invaluable a few years later. They would have been too old to transplant out in the forests now.

Mr. Attlee: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman estimate the loss that the country has sustained by this so-called May economy?

Sir G. Courthope: No, it is too big a thing for me to do that. My recollection is that we estimated the 50,000,000 plants that we had raised and the preparation of the nurseries in which they had grown as worth something approaching £50,000. I give that figure with reserve because I did not know this question was going to be asked. It is past history and I may be inaccurate in the figure. [Interruption.] They were plants of one year, two years and three years—three years was the maximum. The three-year plants had been transplanted once; it is our practice to move two-year-old plants from the seed beds where they were sown into nursery land.
But let me come back to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle. In May of last year he asked me two questions. The first was, How much employment had been given in connection with this scheme? He did not limit it to planting, and I told him, as was the fact, that a considerable amount of employment was being given, though I could not give it in terms of men or of money, by the expansion due to this scheme. We were already at work extending nurseries on quite a large scale, and a very large amount of seed had already been sown, and was being taken care of.

Mr. Sexton: I asked how many unemployed had been set to work on schemes.

Sir G. Courthope: Exactly; and a number of men had been taken on in connection with the very considerable extension of our existing nurseries. They were

extended for the purpose of this special scheme, but because it w as an extension of existing nurseries I could not separate things out. But it meant a good deal of additional employment, and a very large quantity of seed which, as I have already explained, we had taken the risk of getting before we received authority, had already been sown before I answered that question. A few days later the hon. Member asked another question about the number of people employed on planting, and I answered with perfect truth that it was not the season for planting, and that none were employed on planting. As a matter of fact none are employed yet on planting in connection with these Special Areas, because, to begin with, we have not got any plants ready for them to plant, and, secondly, we are only just beginning to get the land to put the plants in, except nursery land.
The question which the hon. Member asked last Tuesday and on my reply to which he raised this subject to-night—in quite moderate language: I make no complaint—was how much money had been expended out of this grant. Up to the present all we have been able to spend, all the acreage which we have been able actually to acquire, is confined to those cases in which we have reached the stage of a contract to purchase and been able to complete it. The acreage which we have already "secured"—that was the term in his question—by purchase is a very small part of that about which we are negotiating and which we confidently hope, as soon as the lawyers have finished negotiations and investigation of title and so on, to acquire. Already we have had reports on something considerably over 300,000 acres in connection with these special schemes—that includes the three Special Areas—and we have completed negotiations in respect of something between 29,000 and 30,000 acres. When I say "completed negotiations" I mean that we have not only satisfied ourselves that the land is suitable, that it is not required for growing food, but that we have arranged terms with the owners of the land, and all that is necessary to complete the purchase is, as I say, the formal investigation of the title and the completion of the contract; but I could not include that land in the answer to the hon. Member's question, because it is not actually secured until the contracts are signed.
Let me say a word about the county of Durham. I have had the figures taken out, although we are not dealing county by county, but by areas, according to the instructions that we received from this House. It happens that in the county of Durham, the areas from which we have had reports from our special officers, are 22,700 acres. One block of 403 acres has been definitely sanctioned for purchase, but we have not got the contract signed. The terms are agreed, and the contract will be signed. Another block of 500 acres has been definitely offered and no doubt very shortly will be added to the "secured" figure.
With regard to the complaint that Durham is neglected, I would remind the hon. Member that, under our ordinary schemes, quite apart from the Special Areas, we have a plantation at Hamsterley extending to 5,104 acres and one at Chopwell amounting to 817 acres. I wish we had a lot more. I could express the same wish in regard to many parts of the country. We have established 17 forest workers' holdings and in addition, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, a training centre has been established at Hamsterley for 200 men for the making of forest roads. Having said that, I want to emphasise that it is not our work to distribute among counties or constituencies the amount that we get. We have to do the best we can to make the money which is granted to us go the longest possible distance and to carry out the task of providing these large additional areas of afforestation within 15 miles of the specified Special Areas. The largest proportion of land for which we have completed negotiations happens to be in the same Special Area as the county of Durham. Most of the land is in the adjoining county of Northumberland.

Mr. Sexton: How many miles?

Sir G. Courthope: I cannot give the figure in miles, but it is within 15 miles of the distressed area. Then authority was given to us to establish additional forest workers' holdings. We saw no necessity to wait until we bought special land, and we have been establishing additional forest workers' holdings on land in Northumberland which we already held in our hands. There are 81 additional forest workers' holdings which would not be established yet but for the Special Areas scheme, already in being

in Northumberland. We hope that the work will continue and that Durham will get its full share of the extra employment and relief which this additional afforestation will give.
I hope the hon. Member and the House will realise first of all that the fact that 11 months have passed and that only a very small expenditure has been made, does not mean that substantial progress has not been achieved. When we received the Treasury's authority for this scheme at the end of February of last year, we were instructed to limit our activities for the time to the acquisition of 100,000 acres in three years. We have already completed negotiations for between 29,000 and 30,000 acres. In spite of the fact that we had to establish a special staff, who had been at work for about six or seven months, we have got that area already. I do not say that I should not have liked to see more done—I should like it to be doubled or trebled—but I do not think it is a very had start on a very big task. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle said we have not used any compulsory powers. That is quite true, and we hope we may never have to. If a scheme of this kind is to go smoothly, it must be done with local good will. Directly you start compulsion you stir up trouble somewhere, and we want the help, not only of the owners from whom we are buying, but from the farmers who have sheep on their land and whom we may be disturbing, from the labour which they employ and which we hope will be transferred to our employment, and so on; and we think it very important, as long as we can, to get the work carried through with complete local good will.
We have not done another thing which we may have to do. We may have to come to this House to ask for legislation to authorise the enclosure of a certain amount of land over which there are common rights of one kind and another, of which very little use is made. There are a large number of areas of land, some in Durham, some in South Wales, some in West Cumberland, which is very suitable for planting, but from which we are excluded by the fact that a limited number of folk have rights which they are not using, but still they are rights. Only last spring, in company with a number of my colleagues on the


Forestry Commission, including the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), a very valued colleague, we visited some areas in South Wales. There was a big block of suitable land—I will not mention names—with which the owner was willing to part. There were livestock—sheep—on the land belonging to six individuals, with all of whom we had made terms, and our officers thought they had got a very large block of planting land comparatively easily.
Inquiries went further, and we found there were a very large number of others who had not any stock there, and did not own any stock, but still had a right, if at any time they acquired stock, to graze it on that land, and consequently that is lost to us. We believe it would be to the national interest that special legislation should be passed enabling some of that land to be used for the growing

of trees. The difficulty is that plantation with any prospect of success is impossible unless you fence. You must have enclosure, and to authorise enclosure you must have the authority of legislation. I hope I have said enough to satisfy the hon. Member that he has no cause of complaint. I quite understand his feeling aggrieved that the money has not been spent faster, but there is every prospect that the full programme will be carried out within the period laid down, and the fact that no more money has been spent is due to natural causes and not to any slackness on the part of the Commission for whom I speak.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.